LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



©fjajL Oapi|nQl)t !f a, 

SliGlf_Z:„2:6 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



MAN 



AND 



THE BIBLE 



IN THE 



LIGHT OF REASON. 



BY 



/ 

WILLIAM WALDO BRIMM, 

OP /^^^;, 

j fr\f-.- .- -. 



ATLANTA, GA.: 

FranklIxV Pkinting and Publishing Co. 

Geo. W. Harrison, State Printer, Manager. 

1894. 



N 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1894 by 

WILLIAM WALDO BRIMM, 
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



TO MY WIFE, MRS. H. W. BEIMM, WHO HAS BEEN TO ME A 
HELPMATE IN THE LABORS OF LIFE; AND TO MY 
FRIENDS WHO HAYE SYMPATHIZED W^ITH ME 
IN ALL MY STRUGGLES, THIS LITTLE 
BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDI- 
CATED BY THE AUTHOR. 



INTRODUCTION. 



John Fiske, in his preface to ^^The Destiny of 
Man/^ says : ^*In dealing with the unknown, it is 
well to take one^s start a long way within the limits of 
the known/^ This is right. In every unsolved prob- 
lem there is always an unknown something which we 
seek to know ; and, in order to find this out, we must 
begin with principles and things we know, and, step 
by step, reach a conclusion legitimately drawn from 
the known premises. This method should always be 
followed in seeking truth in any field of thought, that 
is, if we would be clear. In this treatise this is our 
method ; and we trust, as we advance, light, from every 
quarter, may pour in upon us in such fullness of 
splendor as to leave little, if any, doubt upon the main 
points, at least, of the great problems we have in hand. 
In our Introduction we must deal with some prelimi- 
naries which are of importance, as they are the start- 
ing points in our course. Let the reader mark these 
carefully. 



INTRODUCTION. 



MAN EXISTS. 

That this is true no one can doubt except he be an 
Idealist of the most extreme views ; and^ even then, 
to be consistent^ he must doubt, and then give the lie 
to his own consciousness on the whole subject of his 
doubts. Cogito, ergo sum — I think, therefore I am — 
says Descartes. ^^By which/' Sir William Hamilton 
says, "we are to understand that the fact of our exist- 
ence is given in the fact of our consciousness. '^ 

II. 

MAN HAS REASON. 

To undertake any proof of this proposition would 
be as foolish as for one to attempt, by argument, to 
prove his own existence to another who holds him by 
the hand and looks him in the face. Whatever may 
be said or claimed for the lower animals, on this 
point, certainly we are not in error when we assert that 
man has reason. It is sometimes said, and said as if 
designed to rebut the claim that man has reason, ^^that 
the lower animals have reason.^^ Allowing this to be 
true, it does not invalidate our claim for man. Again 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

it is said, ^^tbat some men are raised very little, if any, 
above the brute in rational process. ^^ This we grant 
to be the case with idiots and some barbarians. But 
this does not militate against our claim that man has 
reason. That some men are born blind, while others 
lose their sight, does not prove the race to be without 
eyes. All we claim here is, man has reason. Not 
that other beings may not have reason also. However, 
we think, there is a vast difference between reason in 
man and the so-called reason in the lower animals ; 
and that the difference is in kind, not, as some say, 
simply in degree. But more of this further on. 

III. 

MAN HAS A PECULIAR CAPACITY FOR ENJOYING 
AND SUFFERING. 

He can enjoy and suffer as no other being on earth. 
This is one of the most familiar facts in his experience. 
Ijife, with him, is a strange mixture of good and evil, 
and he has the capacity for apprehending both. Some- 
times he is borne heavenward on a flood-tide of joy ; 
again he is overwhelmed with the billows of sorrow. 
Circumstances over which he has little or no control 
often expose him to incalculable evils on the one 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

hand, while on the other hand, he finds much to en- 
joy. For both of these he has the keenest sense of 
susceptibility. Flowers bloom in beauty by his path- 
way for his pleasure, but beneath are thorns and 
thistles to admonish him to be careful where he 
treads. Images of evil terrify him. Death preys 
«upon him. He tries to look into the future, but the 
door is shut; at least, it is no more than slightly 
ajar. He is often amazed at what he feels, sees, and 
hears. His sense of responsibility sometimes makes 
him tremble. Sometimes his cup of joy fills up, 
and even overflows, and he drinks as a thirsty man 
of what he fancies may be a perennial fountain of 
bliss ; but, alas ! sooner or later he finds that his cup 
is not unfailing nor unmixed. There are dregs at the 
bottom, and he turns away disappointed and filled 
with disgust. 

ly. 

FOUR GREAT QUESTIONS. 

What is he ? Whence came he ? Why came he ? 
and whither is he going? These are questions of 
the deepest interest to man ; or should be. These 
are questions which stare him in the face at every 



INTROUUOTION. 9 

turn in his pathway through life. It is useless to try 
to express the importance of these questions, especially 
the fourth. '^ Know thyself/' said Solon, one of the 
wise Greeks; and, certainly, nothing could be more 
important to man. ^^ The proper study of mankind 
is man.'' — Pope, 

V. 

TKUTH AND ERROK. 

There is such a thing as truth. This we cannot 
doubt. Circumstanced as we are here, amidst so many 
conflicting opinions on almost every subject, we may 
ask: '^ What is truth?" but we cannot doubt its ex- 
istence. We intuitively perceive the necessary exist- 
ence of truth. But, as surely as truth exists, so surely 
may error exist also. The existence of the one im- 
plies the existence of the other, at least as a possibility. 
These have been at eternal war with each other, and 
still the battle rages. However, though the battle be 
sharp and long, the end is certain. Error must give 
place to truth even as darkness gives place to light. 
Truth must be established. W^e think this may be 
maintained on the principle of the survival of the 
iittest. Then, if we would not be found arrayed on 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

the side of a doomed cause^ let us be sure to espouse 
the cause of truth. 

VI. 

THE OBJECT OF TPIIS TREATISE. 

The object of this treatise, m generaly is the dis- 
covery and establishment of the truth on all the great 
matters with which we have to deal in this book. Not 
the sustaining of som^ pet theory at truth^s expense. 
But if truth is discovered and established, prejudice, 
by both writer and reader, must be laid aside. If 
former theories have to be given up by reason of new 
light, so let it be. The noblest thing man can do is 
to stand by the truth. The love of truth is one of the 
noblest virtues; but indifference to the truth is one of 
the basest crimes. It is mean and low, and is pro- 
motive of disgrace and misery. Prejudice is one of 
the great enemies of truth; and he who writes, as 
well as he who reads, under its influence, may be said 
to enter the field armed for the defence of error. 
Then let all lay aside all prejudice and seek the truth,, 
embrace the truth, and stand by the truth. 

Here arises the question, how is truth to be estab- 
lished? This question has reference to means. We 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

answer : It must be done by the cultivation and con- 
viction of the head and the heart. Not by cxdtivation 
alone. Not by cultivation and conviction of the head 
only; but by cultivation and conviction of both head 
and heart. It is not enough that we see the truth. 
We must be in love with it. Ignorance is a parent of 
error, but not always the only parent. Indifference 
to the truth is also a parent of error, older and meaner 
than the other. These two conjoined have almost 
filled the world with darkness and misery. We may 
think we can stop the breed by slaying ignorance, 
through the cultivation of the head — culturism — but the 
other, like a loathsome polyp, will continue to bring 
forth sons and daughters by self-propagation. Truth 
will never be established in the universal mind until 
indifference to the truth is eradicated from the univer- 
sal heart. 

The object of this treatise, in particular , is to dis- 
cuss : 

1. The Nature of Man— What He Is, This is done 
in the first four chapters. 

2. The Origin of Man— Whence He Came, This 
is done in the fifth chapter. 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

3. TheFinal Cause in Man's Existence Here — Why 
He Came, This is done in the sixth chapter. 

4. The Destiny of Man — Whither He Is Going. 
This is done in the seventh chapter under the head- 
ing: The Future Existence of Man. 

5. The question, Does Man Need a Supernatural 
Revelation? is discussed in chapter VIII. 

6. The question, Has a Supernatural Revelation 
Reen Given to Man ? This is discussed in chapter 
IX, under the heading : Origin of the Rible. 

7. The question, Is the Rible of Divine Origin? is 
discussed in chapter X. 

8. The question, Is the Rible, in its History, Doc- 
trine, Teachings, Claims, or Anything Else, Out of 
Harmony with Any Known Truth, Scientific, Historic, 
or Otherwise? is discussed in chapter XI. 

9. The question, Is Rible Religion the Religion of 
the True Philosophy? is discussed in chapter XII. 

10. The question. Does Christianity Suffer in a Rigid 
Contrast with the Claims and Teachings of What Is 
Called Infidelity? is discussed in chapter XIII. 

11. Heaven and Hell and Man^s Eternal Destiny 
are discussed in chapter XIV. 

Then we will conclude this volume with the prom- 



INTRODUCTION. 1 3^ 

ise to the reader that, if spared and blessed with abil- 
ity, we will return, at some time in the future, and 
discuss some other great questions in which all men 
should be interested, if he or she will give us au- 
dience. The above synopsis of the matters to be dis- 
cussed in this volume is given in lieu of a Table of 
Contents. The reader will understand. 

VII. 

THE PROVINCE OF REASON. 

Reason is to be man's guide in the investigation of 
every subject, and the solution of every problem. 
Whatever comes to him, from any source, demanding 
his attention or claiming his assent, must be brought 
to its light for judgment; and nothing, which is con- 
trary to his reason, properly cultivated and properly ex- 
ereised, may be received by him as true and worthy of 
his confidence. He who denies this reduces man to 
the level of a brute, to be led by a line in the hand of 
another. But let no one mistake us here. This is not 
erecting an altar with a view to sacrificing to reason- 
It is reason simply pointing the way to the altar where- 
on man ought to sacrifice. " Man's place in Na- 
ture'' is not the only question on which men are 



14 INTEODUCTION. 

divided in opinion. Reason's place in man is a question 
which has split the world ! Those who contend that 
reason, in man, is everything — for such there are — 
fail to see that it is the offspring of another and greater 
Reason which it may and does reveal ; while those who 
contend that reason, in man, is nothing — and there are 
such — are guilty of the ridiculous position that it is 
unreasonable in man to be guided by his reason ! We 
think it is time for us to quit this foolishness and keep 
our faces toward the sun if our eyes can bear the light. 
^' But, does not this view make reason the measure of 
belief ?'' We answer, no, by no means. This would 
be a great mistake. Reason cannot be the measure of 
belief, using the word measure in the sense of under- 
stand or comprehend. We are under the necessity of 
believing many things which reason cannot measure. 
It is not necessary to understand or comprehend, per- 
fectly, everything before we consent to believe it. 
Many things are incomprehensible that are not unrea- 
sonable — above reason in this sense but not contrary to 
it. If we were not allowed to believe anything ex- 
cept that which we could perfectly comprehend, we 
should believe very little. 

Again, some one objects, ^^Reason is not a safe 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

guide^ since it teaches differently in different persons. ^^ 
This objection amounts to very little. Scarcely any 
two persons see exactly alike, and yet, they must be 
guided by their eyes. The difference in the teachings 
of reason is generally, if not always, owing to igno- 
rance or prejudice. Let these be removed, and reason 
is a safe guide. We do not mean by this, that it is 
capable of teaching us everything we ought to know, 
but we do mean that it is a safe guide in all matters 
coming within its province. At any rate, it is our only 
guide in all such matters. Then let reason speak out 
and let its voice be heard. Let us be sure that we do 
not turn the light which is within us into darkness. 



MAN AND THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT 
OF REASON. 



CHAPTER I. 

MAN IS A FREE MORAL BEING. 

The first subject claiming our attention under this 
proposition is the moral nature of man. The dis- 
cussion of this part first will the better prepare us for 
the discussion of the matter of his liberty. Befiides, 
this is the natural order. Then^ 

I. Man is a moral being. He has the knowledge 
of right and wrong, of good and evil ; and feels that 
he is under obligation to perform the right and avoid 
the wrong. Yea, further, conscience, a term used to 
indicate a power or capacity of his rational nature, or 
the law of right and wrong within his mind, approves 
the right in his conduct and condemns the wrong of 
which he is guilty. This appears, 

1. From the teachings of Consciousness. Let no one 
confound Consciousness with Conscience. These are dis- 
tinct terms, and mean very different things. Con- 
sciousness is not easily defined. Sir William Ham- 



18 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

ilton says it is indefinable. " This act/^ he says^ 
^^ is of the most elementary character; it is the 
condition of all knowledge ; I cannot^ therefore, 
define it to you; but^ as you are all familiar with 
the thing, it is easy to enable you to connect the 
thing with the word. I know, I desire, I feel. 
What is it that is common to all these ? Knotv- 
ing and desiring and feeling are not the same, and 
may be distinguished ; but they all agree in one 
fundamental condition. Can I know without know- 
ing that I know ? Can I desire without knowing 
that I desire ? Can I feel without knowing that I 
feel ? This is impossible. Now this knowing that I 
know or desire or feel — this common condition of 
self-knowledge — is precisely what is denominated 
Consciousness.^^ — Metaphysics, p. 110. This enables 
us to understand the diflFerence between Conscience 
and Consciousness, and reveals the office of each 
mediately or immediately. Consciousness reveals the 
operations of Conscience, and makes us aware of its 
approval of the right and condemnation of the 
wrong, whether committed by us or some one else. 

With respect to the moral nature of man. Haven 
says : " We are conscious of the operation of this 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 19 

principle in ourselves, whenever we contemplate our 
own conduct^ or that of others. We find ourselves, 
involuntarily, and as by instinct, pronouncing this act to 
be right ; that, wrong. We recognize the obligation to 
do, or to have done, otherwise. We approve or con- 
demn. We are sustained by the calm sense of that 
self-approval, or cast down by the fearful strength 
and bitterness of that remorse. ^^ — Mental Philosophy, 
p. 314. 

All that is necessary for any one to verify this state- 
ment is to take an account of the operations of his 
own mind. Nor is it possible for a man to be de- 
ceived as to the fact of his own moral nature. He 
may find himself puzzled as to the moral character of 
a given act, but as long as he has reason he will have 
no difficulty in seeing himself a moral being. Con- 
science is an indestructible element in his nature. 
So is Consciousness. Both, under certain conditions, 
may be suspended in their operations for a time, but 
never annihilated unless man himself may be annihi- 
lated. 

Now, as Consciousness furnishes us with the fact of 
our own distinction of right and wrong, so it reveals 
to all around us a certain knowledge of their own 



20 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

moral nature. This we know by our intercourse with 
them. We observe it in their conduct. We find 
them making, in the main^ at least^ the same distinc- 
tions we make; and this, too, independent of any 
creed or profession. This leads to the conclusion that 
man is a moral being. But we cannot be satisfied on 
this subject with observations confined to a field so 
narrow as the circle of one^s own acquaintance. In- 
deed, we ought not to be, since, in this case, our con- 
clusion would be broader than our premises, which is 
unlawful. We want to know if it is so with all men. 
This information is given to us, 

2. In the testimony of History. The history of all 
nations proves that man is a moral being ; that the 
moral idea is coextensive with the race. It, according 
to our best authors^ gives no account which may be 
relied on of any tribe or nation entirely devoid of the 
moral idea; and no exception to this rule will avail to 
disprove the moral nature of man, unless it wdll avail 
to disprove his rational nature. Every nation having 
any literature has its works on morals and its language 
expressive of moral ideas. Every nation or tribe which 
has any law for its government, to the violation of 
which a penalty is attached, has the idea of right and 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 21 

wrong. This has been so in all the past ; it is so at 
present. Some one has said: ^^Man cannot be educated 
above this idea^ nor degraded entirely below it^ if only 
reason remain. Of course, the more cultivated and 
refined a people are, the more prominent will be the 
moral idea. On the other hand, it sinks from view in 
proportion as reason is weakened, on account of deg- 
radation. ^^ As long as man is a rational being he 
must be a moral being, since the moral nature has its 
root in the rational nature. These are inseparable. 
On this account we say, when reason is dethroned 
responsibility ceases. 

Here Ave must notice one thing, not necessarily in- 
volved in or deducible from the heading of this chap- 
ter, and yet closely related to it, and that ought to be 
considered in connection with it, viz. : The origin of 
the moral idea. However, it will not be necessary to 
say much on this subject. There are several theories. 
Some have traced it to education ; some to legal en- 
actment; some to association of ideas; some to sym- 
pathy ; and others, to a special faculty. For our 
purpose, here, its origin is not a matter of so much 
importance as its existence, which, as we have seen, 



22 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

is sure. We may say, however, in a work not spe- 
cially devoted to the discussion of questions of Ethics, 
that the moral idea is, unquestionably, natural to 
man. It is an inseparable characteristic, and is one 
of the distinctive differences between him and the 
lower animals. " Not innate, perhaps, but connate.^^ 
At least it must be so as to the capacity for the dis- 
tinction between right and wrong. If this w^re not 
so he never could have the idea. As some one has 
well said: ^^The notion of right and wrong is an 
original and indestructible part or consequence of 
man^s rational constitution.^^ It is true that much 
may be done by education; not by way of giving the 
capacity which is, undoubtedly, natural, but by way 
of improving the perceptive power for the distinction. 
Haven says: ^^Observation proves that the capacity 
always exists in man previous to any effort put forth 
for its development.^^ In order to verify this, let any 
one try the experiment on a common animal, and see 
if the idea of right and wrong, as such, can be im- 
parted. This has often been tried and as often failed. 
True, some have claimed that it has been done, but 
without any real ground. The master teaches his 
dog certain tricks, certain duties we call them, not 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 23 

meaning moral duties of course, but such as to flush 
the birds^ or ''down ^^ at the right time^ and whips him 
if he fails to obey. The dog soon learns by associa- 
tion^ that he is to be punished if he disobeys, and 
when he does disobey, he manifests fear, or what some 
call shame. At once the conclusion of some would- 
be philosopher, in this department, is that the dog is 
a moral being, all he needs is a chance, when the 
truth is the animal has no more idea of right and 
wrong, as moral conceptions, than he has of the 
deepest problems of mathematics. The case is dif- 
ferent with man. He has the capacity for receiving 
and imparting the moral idea, which shows that the 
capacity is natural with him. If this were not so, 
how could he have the moral conception ? To sup- 
pose the idea imported through any other than the 
natural channel, is an absurdity, since it involves the 
thought of receiving and imparting without the ca- 
pacity to receive and impart. 

On the other theories of the origin of the moral 
idea, it is useless to say much. Association and sym- 
pathy have their necessary functions in the mind, but 
it is no part of their office to originate the moral idea. 
In fact, they cannot do this, and the very suggestion 



24 THE NATUKE OF MAN. 

is contrary to the common-sense of mankind. Just as 
well say that reason owes its origin to these^ and then 
flee from a greater difficulty^ in sight ; which is : Why 
is it that these faculties and moral ideas, peculiar to 
man, have not originated, in like manner, with other 
orders of animals ? 

Hobbes traced the moral idea to civil enactments. 
But it would have done just as well to have traced it 
to Socrates. Haven says: ^^The special faculty 
theory has more plausibility than any of these, but is 
altogether useless. ^^ So we say. The truth is, man 
is a moral being in his very constitution, while no 
other being on earth is such. The capacity for the 
moral idea is a part of him. His reason reveals to 
him the distinction of right and wrong. 

II. Man IS free to do right or wrong. This subject 
has been the fruitful source of much discussion in the 
past, and men are still divided in their views about it; 
though, we think, the difference is more upon the 
nature of man's liberty than ih^fact. We shall have 
little to say upon the nature, except incidentally. 
The/ac^ is what we want to establish. That man is free 
to choose the right and reject the wrong is proved: 

1. From observation upon the conduct of men. 



THE NATUEE OF MAN. 25 

We see men constantly exercising this liberty^ in dif- 
ferent matters in life. A man chooses one occupation 
in preference to another ; one place of abode in pref- 
erence to another; one article of food in preference to 
another; one course of conduct in preference to another ; 
and so on. This he does without any appearance of 
constraint or restraint except that which is in harmony 
with the most perfect freedom. It is true w^e some- 
times say man is forced by circumstances to adopt a 
certain course, or choose a certain thing, but we do not, 
necessarily, mean by this that his liberty is entirely 
gone. Of two things or two courses, he may be com- 
pelled to accept that which he does not prefer, if he 
accept at all; but usually he is at liberty not to accept 
that which he does not prefer, which maintains his 
perfect freedom. A man may be forced to take a cer- 
tain remedy, or submit to a surgical operation, or lose 
his life. He is shut up to the one alternative, but 
his liberty is not taken away. He is free. If he take 
the remedy, or submit to the surgical operation, either 
one, is he, perforce, constrained ? Is he not free ? 
Here the objector says: '^But there is something in 
every case which determines the choice. ^^ We grant 
this, but deny that the something com/pels the choice. 



26 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

Once more: A certain man is tempted to steal hi& 
neighbor's horse. He thinks of the law^ of the dis- 
grace if he should be caught, but the desire for gain 
prevails, and he commits the deed. Will any one say 
he was compelled? Surely he might have acted dif- 
ferently. It is true in moral questions men will act,, 
in the main, according to their natures, but observa- 
tion proves that they are not under any necessity. 
They are free. In regard to moral conduct, men gen- 
erally act out their natures. Behind will and desire 
there lies a secret nature, which is the spring of a 
man's conduct in morals, and which gives color to all 
his practices, though it does not interfere with hi& 
liberty. 

2. The consent of mankind. — There are those who 
hold, theoretically, to the doctrine of necessity, but^ 
as we believe, practically, to the doctrine of man's 
freedom. We cannot, therefore, assert that men^ 
universally, in theory, consent to the doctrine of man's 
liberty of choice, but practically this consent is uni- 
versal. It is, as far as investigation has been able to 
determine, expressed in the language of all nations. 
It is expressed in the philosophy and literature of 
every people possessing these characteristics of civili- 



THE NATUEE OF MAN. 27 

zation. It crops out in their theories of government 
and politics. In short, it is to be met with every- 
where in our intercourse with our fellow-meil. 

e3. The testimony of Consciousness. — If man is con- 
scious of anything, he certainly is conscious of lib- 
erty to choose or refuse in most of the affairs of life. 
We are as sure of this as we are of our own existence. 
We are conscious of the power of self-determination. 
We know we are not forced from without to choose 
the way or thing we do choose in every instance of 
choice. " But/^ says one, ^^are we not under necessity 
in some things?^^ We answer, Yes: in many things. 
We are under necessity of temporal death. We must 
die. This is inevitable. Our liberty of choice in 
most matters has no power to avert temporal death. 
Man may hasten death by voluntary act, — by expos- 
ure or by suicide, for instance, — but he is not at lib- 
erty to flee or escape when death comes as a necessary 
vconsequence. Man is also under the necessity of tak- 
ing some sort of nourishment in order to prolong his 
life. In this he has no choice. But he may choose to 
starve himself to death, in which case the ground of 
choice is shifted. The opinion that man cannot die 
till his time comes is a mischievous opinion as generally 



28 THE :natuke of man. 

understood. It is the doctrine of Fatality or Neces- 
sity. Many suicides are rather excused on this 
ground. 

Much has been written and spoken on the doctrine 
of Free Will. We are not on this doctrine. We 
are on the doctrine of man^s liberty and his ability of 
self-determination. Whether man^s will, independ- 
ent of his desires and nature, is free^ is altogether a 
different question^ and one with which we have noth- 
ing to do in this treatise. We are opposing here the 
doctrine of necessity as against man^s liberty: — a 
doctrine almost universal among the materialists of 
this day. We have a notable example given in 
" Boston Monday Lectures/^ on Conscience, by Joseph 
Cook^ p. 105. This is the doctrine of necessity pushed 
to its ultimatum. This is not a new doctrine. It is 
^s old as philosophy itself, and is fraught with great 
mischief. Its aim is to relieve man of personal re- 
sponsibility for his conduct^ but this cannot obtain^ 
Man is free^ whatever may be the consequences. 



CHAPTER II. 

MAN IS A CONFIDING, EELIGIOUS BEING. 

In the beginning of this chapter the religious na- 
ture of man claims our attention. He is a religious 
being. It is not possible to make any assertion with 
respect to him which is truer than this. View him 
where you will, when you will, under whatever cir- 
cumstances situated, he is essentially religious. The 
French philosopher, Auguste Comte, tried to dis- 
prove this; and, for a time, thought he had succeeded, 
but later there was a reaction in his mind, and he had 
to confess that man must have a religion. Mr. Her- 
bert Spencer says the religious idea is inseparable 
from man ; that he cannot dismiss the thought if he 
would. See the first chapter of his '' First Principles.^^ 

^^ There is in the nature of man, or in the circum- 
stances in which he is conditioned, something which 
leads him to recognize and worship a superior being. 
What that something is is not important in our pres- 
ent inquiry. Whether it be a constitutional instinct, 
inwrought by the Maker ; whether it be a deduction 
of universal reason, inferring a first cause from the 



30 THE NATUKE OF MAN. 

tilings that are made; whether it be the eflFect of tra- 
dition^ descending from the first worshipers, through 
all the tribes of the human family; whether any or 
all of these be the cause, the fact is the same. Man 
is a religious being. He will worship. 

^^In view of this propension of human nature, phi- 
losophers, in seeking a generic appellation for man, 
have denominated him the religious animal. The char- 
acteristic is true of him in whatever part of the world 
he may be found, and in whatever condition; and it 
has been true of him in all ages of which we have 
any record, either fabulous or authentic. 

^^ Navigators have, in a few instances, reported that 
isolated tribes of men, whom they visited, recognized 
the existence of no superior being; subsequent re- 
searches, however, have generally corrected the error; 
and, in all cases, when it has been supposed that a 
tribe of men was found believing in no god, the fact 
has been stated as an evidence of their degradation 
below the mass of their species, and of their approxi- 
mation to the confines of brute nature.^^ — '' Philoso- 
phy of the Plan of Salvation,'' pp. 36, 37. 

The book from which this quotation is made was 
written by a man who was once an infidel. But being 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 31 

anxious to receive and stand by the truth, he applied 
himself to the investigation of the whole subject of 
man^s religious nature, and the provisions which had 
been made for its wants. He became satisfied that he 
had been wrong, and this book was the result of the 
change wrought in his mind by the influence of the 
truth. 

^^That a religious destination appertains to man as 
man, whether he has been raised to a full religious 
consciousness, or is simply considered as being capa- 
ble of being so raised, cannot be denied. In all ages 
man has revealed an instinctive tendency, or natural 
aptitude for religion, and he has developed feelings 
and emotions which have always characterized him as 
a religious being. Religious ideas and sentiments 
have prevailed among all nations, and have exerted a 
powerful influence on the entire course of human his- 
tory. Religious worship, addressed to a Supreme 
Being, believed to control the destiny of man, has 
been coevil and coextensive with the race.^^ — B. F. 
Cocker, D.D., ^^Christianity and Greek Philosophy ,^^ 
pp. 63, 54. 

This quotation is from the writings of a man who 
has looked at the secret springs of human conduct. 



32 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

A man not to be suspected of ignorance in the history 
of his own race^ or in the philosophy of human na- 
ture. A man who would not write after this manner 
if there was no truth in the claim that man is a reli- 
gious being. 

^^On one main point which has been questioned^ 
respecting existing facts, the progress of inquiry seems 
to have established, beyond any reasonable doubt, 
that no race of men now exists so savage and de- 
graded as to be, or to have been when discovered, 
wholly destitute of any conceptions of a religious 
nature. It is now well understood that all the cases^ 
in which the existence of such savages has beeii re- 
ported, are cases ivhioh break down upon more inti- 
mate knowledge and more scientific inquiry. 

"Such is the conclusion arrived at by a careful 
modern inquirer. Professor Tiele, who says : — ^History 
of Religion,^ p. 6 — ' The statement that there are 
nations or tribes who possess no religion rests either 
on inaccurate observations, or on a confusion of ideas. 
No tribe or nation has yet been met with, destitute of 
belief in any higher Beings, and travelers who as- 
serted their existence have been afterwards refuted by 
facts. It is legitimate, therefore, to call Religion, in 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 33 

its most general sense, an universal phenomenon of 
humanity/ ^^ — Duke of Argyle in ^^ Unity of Nature/^ 
p. 281. 

This quotation is from a man whose horizon touches 
both poles of our planet and then allows the entire 
world to swing through, while he leaves nothing un- 
noticed. A man whose vision is not distorted by 
prejudice. A scientific man and a scholar. Not one 
of the ''parsons^^ of whose contracted views, as they 
are sometimes called, so many are wont to complain. 

But we must make one more quotation on this 
point. Plutarch, a heathen man, but not wanting in 
observation and historic information, says: ^Qf you 
go through all the world, you may find cities without 
walls, without letters, without rulers, without money, 
without theatres, but never without temples and 
gods, or without prayers, oaths, prophecies, and sacri- 
fices, used to obtain blessings and benefits, or to 
avert curses and calamities. ^^ — ^^ Against Kalotes,^^ ch. 
XXXI. 

But enough has been said on this point. The fact 
of man^s religious nature has been established. We 
have a word to say on the different religions with 
which the world is flooded. Some have made the 

3 



34 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

fact of the existence of so many religions a ground 
of objection to all religion. This is a great mistake. 
The fact that men differ in their moral perceptions 
does not prove that there is no such thing as virtue or 
true morality. So the existence of many religions 
in the world does not prove that all religion is false. 
To make the existence of so many religions an argu- 
ment for the falsity of all religion is illogical and un- 
wise. These different religions can be accounted for 
without difficulty^ but this is not the place nor the 
time. We must take up the second matter of this 
chapter^ namely: The confiding nature of man. We 
have several points to make on this subject. We 
shall designate these numerically. Thus, 

1. Man is capable of receiving and weighing evi- 
dence. No proof of this proposition is needed. Every 
one will admit it without dispute. It is this capacity 
in man which enables him to determine what is truth 
and what is error, and to separate the one from the 
other — to determine what is worthy of belief and what 
is unworthy of belief — to thread his way through a 
maze of conflicting statements, oral or written, on 
any subject, and determine the true and the false. 

2. Sufficient evidence, or what he considers such^ 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 35 

generally moves his mind, and^ if he is honesty he ac- 
cepts or rejects according to the evidence as he sees 
it. It is true that he is often misled ; but this is 
generally the result of credulity or stubbornness for 
which he cannot be excused. Sometimes there is an 
insufficiency of light^ in which case the mind ought to 
remain undetermined. 

Here two questions arise. First^ should man ever 
be guided by probabilities? and^ second^ if so, how 
far ? \t would seem foolish to raise the first of these 
questions were it not that so much is said now-a-days 
in certain circles about the importance of being guided 
only by facts. Now, understand, we are not opposed 
to facts, nor to being guided by facts only, where facts 
are to be had ; but there are many cases where we are 
compelled to act without facts to guide us, and, con- 
sequently, must be guided by probabilities, or ''go it 
blind,^^ This is the case in many of the most impor- 
tant affiiirs of life, and he, who should refuse to act 
without certain knowledge to guide him, in every 
instance, would be considered insane, and made early 
to reap the bitter fruits of his folly. If men should 
refuse to act upon probabilities, the wheels of enter- 
prise, in the business world, would soon be at a dead- 



36 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

lock^ and human life would perish from the earth! 
Facts are great things^ but we cannot always have 
facts to guide us^ but are left to the probabilities. 
Many of the most important discoveries of science 
are made by being guided by probabilities. In fact, 
it is as Butler says : " To us^ probability is the very 
guide of life.^^ 

As to the second question — How far shall we be 
guided by probability ? — the answer is brief. In all 
questions or matters where it is necessary for us to 
decide^ we are to be guided by certain knowledge 
where we have it or can have it ; otherwise^ by prob- 
ability. It is useless to say much on the degree of 
probability that should move the mind to action in 
any case^ since any one may see^ at a glance^ that this 
must depend upon the importance of the matter before 
the mind. Sometimes a bare possibility, in favor of a 
certain course^ should move the mind with all the vehe- 
mence of certainty. To illustrate : A man is so situ- 
ated that he is in great danger of losing his life. There 
is only one means of escape^ and this is barely within 
reach. He must be condemned by all if he refuse 
this. The degree must vary with the circumstances. 

3. The importance of this feature in man^s nature 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 37 

may be seen by considering what would be the state 
of things if he had not this confiding nature^ and^ con- 
sequently^ were incapable of exercising faith. Prog- 
ress in the arts and sciences would be impossible. 
Business relations would be impossible. History^ 
however related and authenticated by one genera- 
tion, would be considered false by the following gen- 
eration. Every man in all the world would have 
to start where his ancestors started. Truth would 
have to give place to the reign of error. In short, 
man's nature would compel him to denounce as false 
all truth not discovered by himself; and he Avould have 
to regard his friends, if he could have any, as seeking 
to deceive him w^hen telling him the truth! 

4. Man's confiding nature has a threefold origin and 
a threefold end. As [to the origin : It is grounded, 
first, in dependence. No being is so dependent as man. 
This induces him to trust in others ; yea, it compels 
him to do so in many things. Second, it is grounded 
in instinct. This leads him to confide in others. He 
is instinctively drawn toward his fellows for the grati- 
fication of his social nature as well as prudential advan- 
tage. So far his confiding nature is a matter of neces- 
sity, not liberty. Third, it is grounded in reason. 



38 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

Here we rise to the loftiest eminence in human nature^ 
and stand among the noblest powers of man^ while th^ 
entire earth, with its myriads of beings, lies at our feet. 
Man believes, confides, etc., because he has, or thinks 
he has, reason for so doing. Reason demands evidence 
to support belief. Man has, or thinks he has, evidence 
for what he believes. Here is liberty. Man is never 
forced to believe, unless it may be said he is forced by 
evidence. This cannot be said, because he may shut 
his eyes against the truth and refuse to believe even 
when the evidence is overwhelming. But he is a 
rational being and is supposed to have a reason, sup- 
ported by evidence, for what he does, as he is sup- 
posed to have evidence for what he believes. We do 
not expect him to act blindly. His confidence in any- 
thing or any one should be sustained by reason, based 
on evidence, which reveals the truth. If he confides 
in error, when the truth is accessible to him, it is evi- 
dent that reason has not been allowed to do her per- 
fect work. 

As to the end of man^s confiding nature, as we have 
stated, it is threefold also. The first part of this end 
is information — that we may receive and rest upon 
the testimony of others. Without this, as has been 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 39 

intimated^ the past would be a blank to every one, 
except in so far as his own observation had gone. 
The present would be confined in its realities to our 
own limited sphere of knowledge, while the future 
would be a million-fold more dark than at present ! 
The investigations and conclusions of others would 
be rejected as false; hence, science would be exceed- 
ingly limited, if it existed at all. There could be no 
communication between man and his fellow-men. 
Every one would have to dwell apart; hence the 
bands of society would be broken and humanity dis- 
mantled of its glory. 

The second end of this confiding nature is spiritual 
communion and enjoyment. Here let it be remem- 
bered that the whole end of man's social nature is not 
mere animal gratification or prudential advantage; 
but it has also, as a part of its end, spiritual commun- 
ion and enjoyment. It is by this that the bands of 
society and government are made strong; and it is by 
this that the whole world will eventually be bound 
into one grand brotherhood; not by the spirit of com- 
munism, but by the spirit of fraternity and social and 
intellectual communion. This is not selfish, neither 
is it making human happiness the grand end, at last, 



40 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

of all man's wonderful endowments. But this end is 
broader than our race. It reaches into the sphere of 
the religious, and finds its complete satisfaction in 
spiritual communion with^ and the enjoyment of, 
some Idea or Being man regards as the perfection of 
all ideas or beings. 

The third end of this confiding nature is right. It 
is wTong for man to disbelieve when he ought to be- 
lieve^ or it is wrong for him to reject the truth. Of 
course, when he does, he must believe in error, which 
is immoral. Man's opinions have an ethical char- 
acter, and are right or wrong according as they favor 
or oppose the truth ; and this in themselves apart from 
their influence on others. If man should refuse to 
obey the dictates of this confiding nature, he would 
be compelled to give the lie to nearly all truth, and so 
be guilty of turning light into darkness, as many do, 
and thereby aggravate their own condemnation. Thus, 
the capacity to believe on evidence is the saving 
clause in man's constitution, and by and through it 
he may do his whole duty as a rational moral being. 
Thus : 

5. Faith is the highest exercise of reason. It ena- 
bles man to enter many fields, where things are as real 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 41 

fis they are anywhere^ into which he could never entei 
but for this capacity to exercise faith. It enables 
him to bind the universe together into one grand 
whole^ and unlock, alike, the portals of the future 
and of the past. It gives him the privilege, in some 
measure at least, of all the treasures of wisdom. It 
throws wide open and exposes to his gaze many cham- 
bers of mystery that to him, without this capacity, 
would remain forever closed. 

Here we may observe, in concluding this chapter, 
that there are four sources of information open to 
man: First, Sensation or Perception. Second, Re- 
flection, including Consciousness. Third, Intuition. 
Fourth, Faith. Now who will dare say that faith, as 
a source of information, is not as important and reli- 
able as any of the others ? That we may see that it 
is, let us separate and put away all the information 
received by faith and see what blanks will be left. 
The truth is, we acquire more knowledge by faith 
than by all the others put together ; yet we hear some 
speaking lightly of faith. 



CHAPTER III. 

MAN IS A FALLEN^ SINFUL BEING. 

I. Let US notice^ first^ the sinful nature of man. 
When we say man is a sinner, we do not mean that 
he is as vile as the devil, or as wicked as he can be, 
in every instance, though many are very wicked. 
There are degrees in sin and grades of sinners. Some 
are very vile in heart and practice ; but none, perhaps^ 
so vile as to be unable to get worse by plunging into 
lower depths of iniquity. Others are comparatively 
good, but none so good, perhaps, as to be unable to 
get better. What we do mean by the assertion, man 
is a sinner, is that he is a violator of moral law ; that 
he is not perfect in his heart and life ; that he is guilty 
of doing things which he knows are wrong. We re- 
fer here to those who have arrived at the years of ma- 
turity, and consequently to the doctrine of personal 
transgression. We do not refer to the doctrine of 
original sin. This will be touched upon in another 
place. That man is a sinner, is certain, 

1. From the testimony of history, sacred and pro- 
fane. We have seen that man is a religious being ; 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 4'> 

that there is no nation without a religion of some sort. 
All religions have their sacrifices, prayers, and confes- 
sions. What is the meaning of all the sacrifices in all 
the religions of all the world but propitiation ? What 
can they mean but an effort at reconciliation between 
the offenders and the offended ? Wherever blood is 
shed in preparation for a sacrifice, wherever a sacrifice 
smokes upon the altar, wherever there are confessions 
and penitence, there is the recognition of the trans- 
gressor, an offender against the will of some superior 
being. Such has been the pungency of this feeling 
that thousands of human beings have been immolated 
yearly to appease the wrath of some imaginary deity ! — 
^^The fruit of the body offered for the sin of the soul.'^ 
But look at the crimes committed, and the sacrifices 
are not to be wondered at. Murders by the million, 
in every age ! Thefts, robberies, blasphemy, adultery, 
fornication, lying, drunkenness, and every other species 
of crime imaginable. 

2. From the testimony of consciousness. Let every 
one consult this witness, who is always, ready and 
truthful. There is no higher authority to which we 
may appeal, and none more faithful. The testimony 
of this witness, so far as we have been able to learn. 



44 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

condemns every man as a sinner. We have never 
heard of a human being, arrived at maturity, who 
would not confess to a consciousness of the guilt of 
having done some wrong by commission or by omis- 
sion. This is the testimony of the best men and wo- 
men of the world. If any should deny it, we would 
consider them soul-deformed, or monsters in their 
constitution. 

3. From the testimony of conscience. Consult this 
witness, Avho is always on the stand in man's bosom, 
placed there to approve or condemn us, according to 
what we have done or think of doing. It will, if left 
untrammeled, not fail to condemn us as transgressors 
of the law of right. Here we are met with the ob- 
jection that conscience teaches differently in different 
persons, therefore its testimony is not to be relied on. 
We admit there may be, and often is, a difference in 
the teachings of conscience as to what is right or 
w^rong in specific cases, owing to prejudice, a difference 
in cultivation, etc.; but we think no case can be 
found where conscience does not condemn the indi- 
vidual as a transgressor, which is the point in hand. 
Is there a man in all the world who will testify that 
he has no knowledge of a condemning conscience; 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 45 

that his conscience clears him of every thought of 
wrong ? No. " Conscience makes cowards of us all.'^ 
The reason of this is^ all, at some time, have done 
wrong — all are sinners. 

As to the degree of condemnation realized in the 
feelings, or the remorse suffered, the experience of 
men is very different. This is owdng, partly, to a dif- 
ference in natural susceptibility; partly, to a disposi- 
tion, in many individuals, to excuse themselves if 
they have not committed some one of what are consid- 
ered the great crimes; but, mainly, to the difference in 
the light in which they view sin, audits consequences. 
There is also another modifying circumstance, namely, 
the frequency with which we commit sin ourselves, or 
see it committed by others. These all have their 
influence. Some more, some less. Some have very 
tender consciences. Others seem to have very little 
moral sensibility, or to have their moral sensibilities 
blunted. Many are quite ready to excuse themselves 
as sinners if they have not committed murder. Con- 
cerning their sins, they are ready to say : ^^They are 
little ones;^^ and are very thankful that they ^^are not 
as other men.^^ They will often cheat their fellow- 
men in business, break the Sabbath, bow in worship to 



46 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

the god Mammon^ and commit divers other sins, and 
then endeavor to console themselves because they are 
not sinners like their fellows who get into jail. They 
forget that cheating is stealing, and that, in most 
cases at least, the man who will thus rob his neigh- 
bor, will, if he can get his price, and persuade him- 
self that he can conceal his crime and evade the halter 
of the law, murder his neighbor. 

After all, there is not, perhaps, so much difference 
in sinful deeds absolutely considered. We, doubtless, 
often make the difference, in a measure at least, where 
it does not really exist. This we do by putting our 
own estimate upon it; by measuring it by our own 
standard, which is modified by a thousand circum- 
stances. This will account, in part, at least, for the 
difference in the degree of condemnation realized in 
the feelings of different persons. Of course, as has 
already been said, there are degrees in sin and grades 
of sinners; but, perhaps, there is not as much differ- 
ence between what we call great and small sinners as 
some think. All sin is the violation of the perfect 
law of right, and every sinner is obnoxious to the 
penalty of that law. But we find men everywhere 
suffering, more or less, on account of sins committed 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 47 

or duties neglected, and we justly say they are sin- 
ners. Some call our sins mistakes, but this will not 
bear the light. We make mistakes, but we also com- 
mit sins, and we suffer more or less on account of the 
fact that we are transgressors and do commit sin. The 
remorse of some is unutterable ! By the way, man is 
the only being on earth that suffers remorse of con- 
science. The reason is he is the only sinful being on 
earth. 

^^But man is not to blame for being a sinner. He 
cannot help it,'^ says one. This objection makes it 
necessary for us to show that man is a voluntary sin- 
ner. The matter of man^s freedom has been set forth, 
and, as we think, fully established in chapter I. We 
have just shown in this chapter that he is a trans- 
gressor; a sinner. We now propose to show that sin 
is a volutary matter with him; that he commits it 
knowingly and intentionally. This is necessary to 
his being a personal transgressor. This is not all that 
is necessary, but what else is necessary has been given. 
Reason, the moral sense, liberty, and the violation of 
the law of right are all necessary, in order that one 
be pronounced a sinner, in the sense in which we use 
the word here. We are not discussing original sin in 



48 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

this place, but personal transgression. Then, we 
repeat, reason, the knowledge of right and wrong, 
liberty, and the violation of the law of right, are nec- 
essary to constitute one a personal transgressor — a sin- 
ner. Though, with all these, one may be no more 
than a sinner through mistake, unless a certain knowl- 
edge of the character of the act, together with the 
intention to commit it, be implied in the word reason. 
We say there is a difference between an error of the 
head and one of the heart; by which we mean there 
is a diflFerence between a mere mistake and an inten- 
tional wrong, or an act committed willfully with a 
knowledge of its evil character. This test is con- 
stantly applied in our estimate of the conduct of our 
fellow-men as well as of ourselves. It is constantly 
applied in our civil courts. It is a principle univer- 
sally held, we believe. Then, before we condemn a 
man, and subject him to punishment, at least severe 
punishment, we should know that he did the wrong 
knowing that it was wrong. True, one's mistake may 
be inexcusable ; may be a great sin, in which case 
condemnation must follow. Thus, if a man who has 
opportunity fails to post himself as to the character 
of an act which is in open violation of the law, he 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 49 

may not be excused, though he plead ignorance. That 
our position here may be sustained, let us remember 
that man is never forced to commit sin. An act to be 
sinful must be voluntary. If one is certainly forced he 
is not open to condemnation. 

But let us be careful here. A mistake may be fatal. 
Let us be sure one is forced beyond all righteous 
power to resist. To illustrate : Suppose a traveler 
on the highway is met by a robber who demands his 
money or his life. Tt could not be considered a case 
of forced surrender of life if the traveler should 
allow himself to be killed rather than give up his 
money. A man allowing his life to be taken, rather 
than part with his valuables, would be guilty, in a 
degree, of self-murder, if these were the certain con- 
ditions. Another case: A man with two guns comes 
up to me on the street, and handing me one, with the 
other leveled at me, he points to an orderly citizen 
and tells me to kill him or he will kill me. What 
am I to do? Be killed of course, rather than com- 
mit murder. It is no sin to die for the right. We 
had better die than commit a great wrong. Man is 
never forced to commit sin. The essential idea of sin 
excludes the thought. But we have seen that man is 



50 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

a sinner. Will any one say that his sins are all sins 
of mistake? Men generally know what is right. 
Do they always do as well as they know? We know 
they do not. 

But man himself testifies that he is a voluntary 
transgressor. He confesses that he sins knowingl}', 
willingly. We venture to say that there is not a 
sane, adult^ human being on the face of the earth but 
will confess to a deed done^ or a word spoken, or a 
thought harbored, one or the other, or all, at some 
time in life, known to be wrong. Every one is 
<3onscious of having done some wrong, in thought, or 
word, or deed. His conscience condemns him as a 
sinner ; and if he is honest he will confess it. But 
we must take up the second matter of this chapter. 

II. Man is a fallen being. This reason affirms on the 
following grounds: 

1. Man has not attained the high and noble end 
for which he must have been made, or brought forth, 
or produced. There are evidences of unfulfilled or 
interrupted design in him. We are passing through 
a rural district on a spring morning, and find in our 
pathway a poor distressed creature. It is struggling, 
flapping its wings, and trying to rise upon the air, but 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 51 

in vain. We lift it up and find that it is injured and 
unable to fly. On the rising of the sun it became im- 
patient of confinement within its narrow home and 
leaped forth anxious to survey the fields and the 
forests. But it was too ambitious. Its defiance of 
the law of its growth and maturity^ with its desire to 
do more than nature designed, proved its temporary, 
if not permanent ruin. Poor thing ! Many a sweet 
song has been hushed into eternal silence by its folly. 
That wing, which, in due time, should have carried it 
over the fields of beauty, above the mountains of 
grandeur, and beyond the clouds of darkness, into the 
regions of almost perpetual light and glory, has been 
broken ! It has not fulfilled its end. Its design has 
been interrupted. So there are evidences of unful- . 
filled or interrupted design in man. He grovels upon 
the earth when he ought to be mounting upward. He 
is crippled! Mishap has befallen him. Perhaps he 
reached too far and lost his balance. Perhaps he 
was ambitious to do more than was designed. At any 
rate, his lofty intellect, his noble imagination, his 
wealth of religious affection are misapplied. He is 
not what he ought to be. He is, evidently, not what he 
was designed to be. He is a fallen being. 



52 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

This is evident again from the strange and conflict- 
ing things in his nature. He is at war with himself 
and his environment. He is petulant, dissatisfied, 
and disappointed. He turns light into darkness, and 
darkness into light. He calls good, evil, and evil, 
good. His heart is a perpetual battle-ground, heaped 
with the dead and the dying. He is all the while 
seeing images of horror floating about him in the air. 
He hears the voice of condemnation and ruin in the 
mutterings of the thunder and the raging of the 
storm. He turns the lightning into the fiery tongue 
of consuming wrath. The ordinary phenomena of 
nature are often converted into ill omens fraught with 
dire calamity. He has very little peace, often none^ 
day or night. ^^His heart is like a troubled sea that 
cannot rest.^^ His body, always more or less diseased, 
is subject to every malady, and finally to death. His 
mind is often full of terrors and awful apprehensions. 
He is weak and yet mighty. He is afraid of his own 
shadow, yet often as brave as a lion. Reveling in 
iniquity, yet ambitious to become an angel of light. 
Knowing the right, yet doing the wrong in defiance 
of all law. He professes to know himself, and yet 
feels he is an inscrutable mystery. Seeks happiness 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 53 

with all his great energies, yet feels that he is not en- 
titled to it. Drinks deep, drinks long, at many cups 
of pleasure, only to have his life embittered thereby, 
and yet drinks again. With the capacities of an 
angel, yet the consummation of folly. O man, surely 
thou art fallen! 

2. Man bears the marks of a fallen being. He 
seems to be the wreck of a nobler manhood. We 
sometimes meet men who, on account of their be- 
sotted, debauched condition, are loathsome in the ex- 
treme; and, yet, they give evidence of high birth and 
much cultivation. They have been nursed in the lap 
of superiority, and kissed by the angel mother when 
their lives were unstainedby personal iniquity. They 
have been pointed to the goal of honor, and received 
the training necessary to attain it; but, alas! alas! 
they have fallen a prey to indulgence! They have 
brought along the imprint of that angel mother^s 
kiss, the evidence of a better estate, and of a high 
origin; but an evil spirit has entered into and pos- 
sessed them. We see all this in our race, and the law 
of induction compels us to conclude that man is not 
what he once was — that he is fallen. 

Again, man presents decided marks of degradation. 



54 THE NATUEE OF MAN. 

His powers and capacities seem to be crippled^ as 
though he had suffered some terrible catastrophe. He 
gives evidence of having been shorn of a former 
glory; like the moth which, fascinated by the light 
of the evening lamp, suddenly finds itself upon the 
stand, stripped of its greatest power. He was evi- 
dently designed to be the noblest creature upon the 
earth. Science presents him as the finishing touch 
in the great Temple of Nature. As he stands upon 
her lofty dome, with one foot raised and his finger 
pointing heavenward, he w^as, evidently, designed to 
be the crown and ornament of the whole. But, look 
again. He is broken, and is twirled about the apex 
like the flapping, torn sail about the mainmast of the 
storm-beaten ship, while the whole structure seems to 
tremble with anxiety for him. What^s the matter? 
Some terrible calamity has befallen him ! Proud, he 
ever seems to seek to lift his head ; but groveling, he 
reaches downward as if he would exchange his place 
for the lowest in the great building ! 

3. The poller that produced or brought man forth 
was not a sinful power. To suppose this would be a 
contradiction; because this would involve the idea of 
a self-antagonizing creative power, which is an ab-^ 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 55 

surdity. Sin is a disorganizing agent and must work 
contrary to an organizing creative power. From this 
it is reasonable to conclude that the power that pro- 
duced man in the beginning was not a sinful power. 
Besides, sin is a weakness, inconsistent with the idea 
of a creative power. 

Again, the same power that produced or brought 
man forth must have produced every other being in 
the world. But every other being seems to be fitted 
to its surroundings and answering its end. This, 
doubtless, would have been different if they had been 
produced by a power in anywise tainted with sin. 
How, then, shall we account for man^s sinful condi- 
tion ? It is not necessary to suppose him produced 
in sin, or with a sinful nature. He has, in himself, 
all the capacity necessary to turn himself into a sin- 
ner; and as he is the only sinful being in the world, 
it is quite reasonable to suppose that his ruin was the 
result of the exercise of his own powers. Besides, if 
sin had been forced on man in his creation, and hence 
not the result of his own choice, he would be irre- 
sponsible for it, or for the commission of it. But we 
find he is responsible. His conscience condemns him 
for being a sinner, and consciousness bears testimony 



56 THE NATUEE OF MAN. 

to the fact. What then? Why^ this: There is no 
way to account for man^s sinful condition except upon 
the supposition of the Fall through voluntary trans- 
gression. Pascal^ as quoted by Dr. McCosh, says: 
^^Had man never fallen^ he would have enjoyed eternal 
truth and happiness ; and had man never been other- 
wise than corrupt^ he would have retained no idea 
either of truth or happiness. So manifest is it that 
we once were in a state of perfection, from which we 
are now unhappily fallen.^' — Div. Gov,, p. 56. 



CHAPTER IV. 

MAN IS A PHYSICO-SPIRITUAL BEING. 

We are sure man has a body. May we be as sure 
that he has a soul? We answer^ yes. We may not 
be able to construct an argument whereby we may 
rigidly demonstrate the existence of the soul; but 
this is no reason for doubting its existence. We can- 
not construct an argument whereby we may rigidly 
demonstrate the existence of our bodies, yet w^e know 
they exist. We do not need any argument to prove 
their existence. But as the soul cannot be seen, han- 
dled, etc., as the body, some are tempted to doubt its 
existence. For such we oifer the suggestions of this 
chapter. 

But let us define the term soul before we go farther. 
Webster defines the soul as: ^^The spiritual, rational, 
and immortal part in man/^ We do not think that 
the idea of immortality properly belongs to a strict 
definition of soul, since it is not, as we understand, a 
necessary quality of spiritual substance, or one of the 
attributes by which it is known. We give the follow- 
ing definition which, though it may not be perfect, is, 



58 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

to our mind^ more satisfactory : The soul is that spir- 
itual and rational part in man which thinks^ judges^ 
remembers^ imagines^ etc.^ and withal is self-acting, 
but dependent and limited; intellectual and moral, 
emotional and religious^ voluntary and responsible. 
There may be more words in this definition than are 
necessary; but there is no thought here, we think, 
which does not belong to the soul, either in its sub- 
stance or attributes. 

Now, that we may see the difference between body 
and mind, spirit and matter, and know the ground 
upon which the belief in the existence of human souls 
is based, let us attend to the following considerations: 

1. Mere matter cannot think, see, act, etc. There 
is nothing surer than this, unless it may be such truths 
as are immediately revealed in consciousness, or those 
demonstrated mathematically. Matter, in itself, is in- 
ert, passive, and without any power to produce motion. 
The capacity of matter to attract other matter may be 
thought to be an exception, but it is not. This is simply 
a law under which it lies, and which it obeys without 
thought or effort, and this only within certain limits and 
under certain conditions. Now we know that our bodies 
are matter, and^ except in so far as they are organized 



THE NATURE OF MAN.; 59 

matter and endowed with present vital principle, are 
subject to the same conditions and limitations as other 
common matter. This we know by their state when 
the vital principle is gone. We see them then as mere 
lumps of clay. But we think, judge, act, and produce 
action ; and that too with the consciousness that it is 
the spiritual or immaterial, intangible part within 
thinking, judging, acting, etc., — not the body. 

" But may it not be the vital principle within our 
bodies which does all this?^^ says some one. Let us 
see. Life is a wonderfully mysterious agent; and any 
eflFort, on our part, to grasp, analyze, and understand it 
is always a failure. Whether it is a substance, material 
or immaterial, spirit or matter, we know not. But we 
know that all life is not what we call soul. Our souls 
may, possibly, be the life of our bodies, but we have 
no good ground for supposing that they are. We have 
reason to think they are not. Life seems to be the 
organizing agent in the world : and, as such, must be 
different from spirit which stands above and beyond 
its reach. There is life in plants, and so far as we 
know, it is the same in nature as life in animals; but it 
does not think, judge, etc. — at least we have no reason 
to believe it does. What becomes of it when the 



•60 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

plant or body dies^ we cannot even guess with any as- 
surance. But the fact that this principle, this organ- 
izing life, is in plants, and that plants do not think, 
iudge, etc., leads to the conclusion that this life and 
mind or spirit are not one but different things. 

Further : The soul thinks, judges, acts, etc., almost, 
if not quite, independently of the body. This is the 
case in a large portion of its exercises. The senses of 
the body furnish the soul with material for thought, but 
the soul works up this material without any special help 
from the body, except as a medium of action in its 
present united relation. It thinks, it reasons, it judges, 
it desires, it wills, it imagines, it remeaibers, and, 
above all, takes cognizance of its own operations, 
while the body is engaged or at rest. Yea, the body 
may be asleep while it is very active, as in dreams, 
w^hich are not always disconnected or desultory, but 
often logical and orderly. Profound problems have 
been solved by the mind or soul while the body was 
sleeping. This shows a great degree of independence 
of the body, and furnishes a presumption, at least, in 
favor of the position that the soul and the body are 
different entities. The soul seems never to sleep, but 
appears to be eternally vigilant, as a sleepless sentinel 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 61 

on duty. How far the soul may be dependent on the 
brain for its activity concerns us not now. The most 
scrutinizing investigation proves that the soul is not a 
material substance^ that it is not the body^ or any part 
of the body. After death the body is perfect as a 
body. All the parts and organs are there. The brain 
is perfect as a material organ, but thought and the 
thinking entity are gone. 

2. Mere matter has no consciousness. It does not 
know, and know that it knows. Our bodies cannot 
be said to be conscious of anything; to know any- 
thing. ^^But, may they not know without being con- 
scious of it ? ^^ Impossible. Consciousness is the, very 
condition of knowing. There can be no knowledge 
without it. Sir William Hamilton says: " It is the 
condition of all knowledge. ^^ Who would think of 
addressing himself to the body, simply for informa- 
tion, except with the dissecting knife, or in some other 
way to determine some matter having immediate ref- 
erence to the body, as an object subject to investi- 
gation ? At what a loss is a physician, in making his 
diagnosis, when the mind of the patient is unable to 
reveal itself, by reason of the condition of the body, 
which is its medium of expression here! And how 



62 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

often do we see cases where the mind would speak^ but 
the lips refuse to move. Its consciousness is often 
expressed under such circumstances by the shake or 
nod of the head. Even in the appetites of the body 
we give the mind the credit of indicating the supply 
necessary; just as the engineer calls for the supplies 
necessary for the successful running of his engine. Of 
course the relation is much closer in the one case than 
in the other, but the one serves as an illustration of 
the other, and that, too, without any disparagement to 
our bodies. In the case of hunger the lires are going 
down and need replenishing, and even instinct puts 
forth effort for food ; but the body, of itself, knows no 
more of this, as a knowing subject, than the cooling 
engine of its need of fuel. 

" But is not man a compound of body and mind, 
perfectly united and interdependent?^^ We an- 
swer, consciousness says no, and experience and ob- 
servation say no. Man has a body and soul united and 
mutually related in such a manner as to appear to be 
one, to the careless, but not to an observer, whose eye 
is keen for differences. We know that we have bodies, 
but consciousness says our bodies are not ourselves, 
proper. It also says that the soul is superior to the 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 63 

body^ eveu as the musician is superier to his instru- 
ment; that the body and soul are related but difiFer- 
ent entities. Spirit is the only entity in the universe 
that we know anything of which gives us, through 
consciousness, the great law of relation and dissimi- 
larity, as a knowing subject; and this consciousness 
reveals the souPs perfect spirituality, and its perfect 
separateness, in its substance, from everything which 
may be discerned by the senses. 

'' But may not man be a being composed of two sides 
united in one?^^ We reply, this seems to be Profes- 
sor Bain^s theory in his " Body and Mind.^^ Well, 
really, it is best for man not to be too one-sided. But 
in striving to keep clear of one evil, we had better be 
sure we do not fall into another. In this world we 
are always steering between a Scylla and a Charybdis, 
and we should strive to keep clear of both. It is not 
good for man to be too two-sided. This theory of a ma- 
terial and an immaterial entity amounts to material- 
ism at last. Nothing more nor less; and violates the 
teachings of reason, which says: Man ought not to 
be a two-sided being. 

^^ But why do we not know mind as well as matter ? ^^ 
We reply : It is the opinion of many of our greatest 



64 THE NATUKE OF MAN. 

V 

thinkers that we do. Thus Dr. McCosh says : '' Man- 
has means of knowing the existence of mind as imme- 
diate as the means of knowing the existence of matter J^ 
Again, " We have a positive though limited knowledge 
of mind, even as we have a positive though limited knowl- 
edge of body,^^ — '^ Christianity and Positivism/^ pp. 
101, 104. Now, we ask: Why should we not 
know mind as well as we know matter? We see 
matter and feel matter; but what is it that sees and 
feels? Surely it is not the body, but the soul. Now, 
as the soul sees and feels matter, through the body, 
does it not know itself seeing and feeling? Of 
course. AVell, if the soul knows itself seeing and feel- 
ing matter, does not it know itself as well as it knows 
matter? All that it can know of matter is that it is 
hard or soft, of a certain color, etc.; that is, know 
that matter has these properties, and occupies space, 
etc. That is all. Now it certainly knows as much 
of itself. It knows that it acts, knows, and feels. 
Is not knowledge just as real and certain in the one 
case as the other? The truth is, the soul can be more 
certain of its own existence and of its own acts and 
qualities than it can of the existence and qualities of 
matter; though it may be certain in most cases of both. 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 65 

Once more. ^^May not matter be resolved into 
mind and mind into matter ?^^ Dr. McCosh says: 
^^ As matter cannot be resolved into mind on the one 
hand, so mind cannot be resolved into matter on the 
other^ The reason for this must be found in the 
very nature of these substances. " By our primitive 
cognitions^ we know matter as extended, solid, divis- 
ible, and exercising such qualities as attraction and 
repulsion; but we also know self as perceiving, judg- 
ing, reasoning, devising, hating, fearing, loving. To 
those that would aver that mind may be merely a 
modification of matter, I reply, ^rsi5, that the two are 
made known to us by different organs; we know the 
one, matter, by the senses; the other, mind, by self- 
consciousness. No man ever saw a thought, touched 
an emotion, or heard a volition. Nor are we con- 
scious, within the thinking mind, of space occupied, 
or of hardness, or of color. We reply, secondly, and 
more particularly, that we know them as possessed of 
essentially different properties ; we know the one as 
occupying space and exercising certain attractive 
powers: whereas, we know the other as capable of 
judgment, purpose, and affection. If any one will 
maintain that, notwithstanding these differences, the 



66 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

two can be reduced to one, the burden of proof lies 
upon him/^ — ^^ Christianity and Positivism/^ pp. 105, 
106. This is conclusive on this point. 

3. The body or matter cannot have a personal 
character, such as every man has. We never think of 
attributing to a human body, or to mere matter, a 
personal character; or the quality of moral goodness 
or badness. But we know that every man has a good 
or bad character, or what may be called a medium 
character. Now, we know that these qualities cannot 
inhere in body or matter. Yet, they do inhere in the 
person — not in the body, but in the living soul. Man 
is a free, moral, and religious being. Do we ever 
think of assigning to man^s body free agency, moral 
accountability, or religious feeling? Man is a sinner. 
Is his body the sinner, or is it only the instrument in 
the commission of sin, while the real sinner, and that 
in which the personal character inheres, lies out of 
sight? All know how to answer these questions. 

4. A consciousness of personal identity reveals a 
wonderful difference between the body and the soul, 
and shows the soul to be spiritual, and, hence, not 
subject to the conditions of matter. Matter is con- 
stantly fluctuating — changing from one form to an- 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 67 

other^ from one state to another — so that its identity 
-cannot be said to be maintained, however indestructi- 
ble. Our bodies are constantly changing; and, 
according to what seems to be settled science, they are 
<*.ompletely rebuilt, by casting off old and introducing 
new material, in the space of every seven years or less. 
All organic living bodies are subject to these varia- 
tions. So that all material nature is in a state of con- 
stant mutation. But it is not so with our souls. They 
remain the same amidst all the changes of the body, 
and so our personal identity is maintained. Mutilate 
the body by removing the arms, the legs, the eyes, 
the hearing, and yet the mind remains the same. 

'' But may not the brain be the mind ? ^^ This is 
virtually one of the questions answered by Dr. R. L. 
Dabney in his examination of the " Sensualistic Phi- 
losophy of the Nineteenth Century.^^ He says : " One 
answer has been given above ; that while the proper- 
ties and functions of brain-matter are material, quali- 
fied by extension and divisibility, those of conscious- 
ness are spiritual, simple, and indivisible. Another 
answer is, that I know my own brain, like other mat- 
ter, like my eyeball, is also objective to that in me 
which thinks. Of the most internal headache, which 



68 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

men ever have, they say, ' My head hurts me/ as nat- 
urally and truthfully as they say, ' My foot hurts me/ 
The me that hurts is diflFerent in each case from the 
organ which hurts it/^ p. 156. 

5. We know that mere matter is not emotional. We 
have good reason to believe the body is not, but we know 
that the soul is. This marks a wide distinction between 
the soul and the body, — between mind and matter. 
We speak of a sentient body. What do we mean ? 
Is mere matter sentient? Impossible. There must 
be present the vital principle. Is that all? Every- 
thing having life is not sentient. The live oak, for 
instance. Then what is necessary to sentiency? Cer- 
tainly something more than mere vitality. There must 
be some sort of a spirit in which is consciousness. But 
what is it that feels? Certainly it is not the body. 
Take away the consciousness of the soul and you may 
lacerate the body as much as you please, and, even 
though life is there, there is no sensation. Then it 
must be the soul that feels, that is sentient. Con- 
sciousness is a faculty of the soul, and it reveals all 
impressions. 

" But sentiency or the capacity for emotion does not 
constitute a soul, nor prove its existence. Common 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 69 

animals are sentient and emotional, yet, as we under- 
stand, without souls. '^ We admit the objection, but 
at the same time, we claim that if our souls are sen- 
tient and emotional, and consciousness testifies that 
they are, then it follows that they may enjoy or suffer 
without the body, provided they can exist without the 
body — a question yet to be discussed. 

6. We know that the soul may suffer or enjoy 
where the body is not involved. This is proved by 
the many cases of persons who are happy or comfort- 
able in mind while the body is languishing with 
disease ; or the many cases of persons whose bodies 
are sound, but whose minds or souls are preyed upon 
by sorrow. Remorse sometimes drinks up the very 
spirit, while the body is in good health. News is 
sometimes brought to persons who are in great dis- 
tress of mind, and in an instant the cloud is dispersed 
and the spirit filled with joy unutterable. On the 
other hand, news is sometimes brought to persons 
who are in the midst of pleasure, having the whole 
life bathed in social enjoyment, and in a moment the 
clouds gather, the sky grows dark, and the storm 
bursts in all its fury upon the soul! The body, in 
these cases, has nothing to do with the matter, ex- 



70 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

cept to be made the instrument of expressing the 
joy or sorrow of the spiritual and feeling entity 
within. 

'' But may not all that has been claimed for man 
in this chapter be claimed for the lower anir^ials?^^' 
We think not. However^ it will be well to investi- 
gate this matter and see what we are entitled to 
claim for man, if there be anything, which we are 
not entitled to claim for the common animal. The 
subject is an interesting one^ and has commanded 
much attention, though not as much perhaps as it 
deserves. Much has been done already, but much re^ 
mains to be done. The field of comparative psychol- 
ogy presents many difficulties by reason of the singu- 
lar overlapping of the subjects it presents for our 
consideration. Instinct approaches, seemingly^ so near 
to reason, at times^ that many have been led to con- 
clude that the^ difference between the mind of man 
and the mind of the brute is in degree, and not in kind,. 
We do not see, however, how any careful scrutiny 
could result in such an erroneous conclusion. We 
know that the resemblances and differences are such 
as to render the task of separating and combining a 
somewhat difficult one, especially when the details are 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 71 

handled as they ought to be by any one who professes 
to do a thorough work in this department of learning. 
But there are certain great and leading features, so 
distinct and marked, that any ordinary observer ought 
to be kept from radical error on this subject. There 
is an acknowledged difference, but writers are not 
agreed as to what that difference is, or how great it is. 
We propose to point out some of the great differences 
and leave details to others. We lay dow^n the follow- 
ing proposition w^hich we propose to sustain by evi- 
dence : 

7. The difference between man and the lower animals 
in mental endowment is, in the main, a difference in kind, 
not in degree simply. 

(1) Reason in man is different in kind from what 
is called reason in the brute. Whatever may be 
claimed for the lower animal, in the form of reason, we 
know that there are certain rational processes of 
which it is totally ignorant, and perfectly incapable, 
cultivate it as you may. It knows nothing, for instance 
of abstract reasoning, as such, and is incapable of 
knowing. It performs certain acts which, to some, 
seem to give evidence of abstract process, but, in real- 
ity, it is not. It is only an "extraordinary blaze of 



72 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

instinct/^ The domestic animals, which have, in their 
generations, been associated with man for thousands 
of years, know nothing — though efforts have been 
made to teach them many things — of these processes : 
nor can they know. 

(2) The difference in their knowledge of the true, 
beautiful, and good shows a wonderful difference be- 
tween the mind of man and the minciof the common 
animal. What does the brute know of necessary 
principles, of intuition, as such ? What of Esthetics? 
Wh^t of right and wrong as distinctions in acts? 
What of religion ? We believe Sir John Lubbock 
claims to have found some evidence of religious wor- 
ship among certain ants, inasmuch as he found some 
blind beetles in an ant nest which he supposed might 
be the object of the religious veneration of the ants ! 
Some seem to be very anxious to exalt the brute in 
order to degrade the man. The mere animal can 
know nothing of axiomatic truth — nothing of moral 
truth — nothing of religion. 

(3) The difference between man and the lower an- 
imals appears again in their capacity for improvement. 
The common animals make no progress ; they are the 
same now that they were thousands of years ago ; you 



THE NATURE OF MAN. 73 

may teach the horse extra knowledge^ but she will not 
impart it to her foal. The brute cannot abstract and 
generalize ; therefore the brute can have no scientific 
knowledge. But man is so endowed as to cultivate the 
sciences, and to make indefinite advancement in knowl- 
edge. Yea, he may go forward in search of all truth. 
Yea, he may heap up knowledge and leave stores of 
it to following generations which begin where he left 
off, and continue to accumulate. The common animal 
does not so ; nor can it be changed, with respect to 
this matter, do what you may. 

(4) The capacity for spiritual enjoyment and suffer- 
ing reveals another wonderful difference between man 
and the lower animals. What does the brute know of 
rational enjoyment as such? What of religious bless- 
ings? What does it know of remorse for wrong-do- 
ing ? What, of a condemning conscience ? We are 
not coasting the sea of mere animal being when we are 
sailing in these waters. These powers and capacities 
place man far above the brute in the scale of animal 
being. Man has a soul ; the brute has not. This is 
the infinite '^differentiating differenced^ 

Now, just what is necessary to make ''a soul a soid^^ 
we know not. Just what is the difference between 



74 THE NATURE OF MAN. 

the spirit of a man and the mind of a beast, in every 
particular, we know not ; nor is it necessary that we 
should know ; for if this has anything to do with the 
question of immortality, the decision may hinge upon 
quality or quantity, or both. 

Now we have seen what man is. In the next chap- 
ter let us inquire whence he came. This is a question 
of great importance, and is, at present, commanding 
much attention among writers. 



CHAPTER Y. 

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FOREGOING SHOWING THE 
ORIGIN OF MAN, ETC. 

In the preceding chapters we have discussed the 
nature of man sufficiently to see what he is. This 
furnishes ground for several important conclusions 
which, taken in connection with some others deduced 
from proper sources, such as his dependence, weak- 
ness, etc., will clearly, we think, reveal his origin. 
Then, 

I. From the fact that man is a free moral being, as 
shoivn in chapter /., we infer that he was constituted with 
reference to moral accountability and rewards or punish- 
ments. This is necessarily implied in free moral 
agency, and evinces the profoundest intelligence and 
design in his very constitution. Here man is thrown 
back upon a level with all other beings in the several 
kingdoms of nature, and in seeking to determine his 
origin, we enter a field of evidence where there is little 
room for difference, on one point, at least, among the 
various schools of philosophy. All are agreed, we 
believe, when the matter is thoroughly ventilated and 



76 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

sifted^ that there are marks of design in all nature. 
There is a difference as to the manner of expressing 
it^ and a difference as to the origin to which this de- 
sign is to be traced; but there is not much difference^ 
if any^ upon the question of its existence. We all 
kuow^ using some familiar illustrations, that the wings 
of birds were constituted with reference to the air and 
for purposes of flight. All know that the fin of the 
fish was constituted with reference to the water, and for 
swimmiug. And so on through all nature. Wherever 
there is a developed organ or a special capacity, we 
have the evidence of design in the organ or capacity 
and the provision made for its exercise. A little 
study here will exhibit nature as a unit in its origin. 
Everything dovetails beautifully into its surroundings, 
and wherever we have the type we have the antitype. 
So far, we believe, all, when understood, are agreed. 
But from this point the difference begins and investi- 
gators are thrown into two great classes, according to 
their view of the origin of things. These are Theists 
and Atheists. But let us inquire, 

1. What is man doing with a moral nature, and 
moral freedom if he is not accountable to some one, 
and to be rewarded or punished according to his 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 77 

deeds ? Our nature is certainly a great lie if there is 
no Judgment and no Judge. Has any one ever seen a 
well-developed type for which there was no antitype ? 
Has any one ever seen a bird with all its aerial pro- 
clivities where no air could be found to answer the 
demands of its constitution ? Has any one ever seen 
a perfect eye where no light, with which to enable it 
to see, was possible? Nature is not in the habit of 
sporting with her subjects. Where an organ or a 
capacity is bestowed, it always means something; hence, 
it is clear that man was constituted with reference to 
moral accountability and rewards or punishments. 
This conclusion is in harmony with experience and 
observation. We feel that we are accountable and 
must be judged and rewarded or punished. Observa- 
tion proves that our fellow-men have a like experience. 
Besides they confess it. 

2. Is man, thus constituted, the Avork of Nature, 
without intelligence, without the moral idea ? Such 
a conclusion would be absurd in the extreme. The 
very idea of design excludes the thought. Design 
necessarily implies intelligence. If there is a mark 
in man which implies design, then the power that pro- 
duced him was an intelligent power. There is no 



78 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

escape from this conclusion. Then we must endow 
Nature with intelligence as well as power before we 
can put man down as her offspring. 

'' But may we not say that the nature of the being 
creates the conditions necessary to reach all the ends 
implied in its constitution?^^ According to this sup- 
position each and every being in the universe be- 
comes a creator and makes things to suit itself. The 
bird or the wing creates the air; the iish or the fin^ 
the water; the eye, the light; and man^ the Judgment 
where he is to render his account ! How absurd any 
such supposition! How inconsistent with Reason! 

'^ But may not Nature be intelligent and moral, and 
withal sufficiently powerful to produce and bring to 
their present state of perfection, by an infinite series of 
efforts, all the beings with which we are acquainted? 
And may not this supposition, better than any other, 
account for the imperfections we witness in man, and 
all about us ?^^ We reply, 

(1) It would be better to admit, at once, the ex- 
istence of a personal, intelligent, powerful, and just 
God, who is independent of Nature, but her author, 
and working through her, than to substitute some- 
thing like the above which, allowing it to be true, 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 79 

neither relieves us of moral accountability^ nor of our 
subjection to rewards and punishments. This would 
either place us under an awful fatality^ whereby we 
would be just as liable to be rewarded or punished 
above what we merit^ as to be treated justly^ or leave 
us to be brought to Judgment and rewarded or pun- 
ished according to our deeds. We would gain nothing 
except, it might be, to get rid of the idea of a personal 
God by substituting an impersonal nature. Man is a 
moral being and must be rewarded or punished by an 
all-wise and Holy God, or by Nature acting as God. 
Analogy in the field of design forces us to a choice 
between these alternatives. 

(2) We have no evidence of anything being pro- 
duced and fitted toits surroundings, so as to be made 
to answer certain constitutional ends, without intelli- 
gence. Now we have no evidence that Nature is in- 
telligent, but much evidence that it is not. What is 
Nature ? " The established order of things.^^ This, 
we think, is about as good a definition as can be given, 
and may be accepted by all. But the definition im- 
plies intelligence lying behind Nature, not in Nature. 
Suppose we say, "Nature is the order of the operation 
of law.^^ We gain nothing. For law implies intelli- 



80 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

gence operating according to plan. Any satisfactory 
definition of Nature must always imply intelligence 
behind and beyond Nature. If we place intelligence 
and the moral idea, together with infinite power, and 
every other perfection, of the existence of which the 
universe furnishes us any conception, to Nature\s 
credit, w^e do but make Nature God, and thereby in- 
volve ourselves in all of the confusion and absurdity 
of pantheism. Nature of itself, abstractly considered, 
has no intelligence, no power, no moral idea, no de- 
sign, no ability to produce anything. 

NoAv we know, by the teachings of science, that 
there was a time, in the history of our earth, when 
there was no life upon it, when it was a molten mass. 
To bring it to its present state, with all its forms of 
life, life had to be produced, and millions of beings 
formed. This has been done, and we ask, by whom 
or what? We must say: either by Nature, that is, mat- 
ter and the laws of matter, without life and without in- 
telligence^ or by some being, with life and with intel- 
ligence, working in and through Nature. Now, ac- 
cording to our own knowledge of Nature, natural law,, 
cause and effect, mind and matter, and the agencies at 
work in and around us, will we, can we, say that Nature^ 



TPIE ORIGIN OF MAN. 81 

without any supernatural power working in and 
through her^ is the author of all these living things 
with their wonderful powers? Surely not. This 
would be irrational. 

(3) An infinite series of causes and effects is a 
contradiction. There can be no such thing. This 
implies change^ implies number, implies time; all of 
which exclude the idea of infinity. That which 
changes had a beginning. That which changes may be 
numbered in the changes it has undergone. That which 
changes requires time for its changing ; therefore that 
which changes cannot be infinite in any proper sense. 
Nature is all the while changing, in its forms, in its 
effects ; therefore Nature had a beginning and, hence, 
cannot be infinite. Then to call Nature the author of 
man and the universe is not satisfactory. Reason com- 
pels us to the belief that the finite has its solution only 
in the infinite. 

3. To whom is man accountable, and who is to re~ 
ward or punish him? He is accountable. He must 
be rewarded or punished. The fact remains, whatever 
may be said of his origin. Here some one asks:: 
^^May not man be accountable to, and rewarded or pun- 
ished by, the state, or society, or himself, or allf^ In 



82 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

reply^ we say: The state and society take account 
of a very small portion of man^s life^ and cannot hold 
him responsible^ and rcAvard or punish him according 
to his deeds^ except within very narrow limits. Be- 
sides^ the penalties these inflict are not moral penalties. 
The rewards they offer are not moral rewards. Their 
judgment is not founded on moral principles. They 
are human institutions^ partaking of human frailty, 
and easily evaded by human ingenuity. As to man 
holding himself to account, and rewarding or punish- 
ing himself, this is absurd. No such theories will an- 
swer the purposes of moral government. We must 
have something more specific and more accurate than 
this. 

II. From the fact that man is a confiding religious 
being, as shown in chapter II., we infer that he was 
constituted with reference to the exercise of religious 
faith and worship. Here, again, the argument is from 
design. We inquire: if there be no God in whom to 
believe, to trust, and to worship, why is man in pos- 
session of this confiding religious nature? Is it a 
mockery? Have we here a wing with no air to spread 
it upon? A fin without water? An eye with no 
light? Surely man is not a contradiction in his con- 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 83 

stitution ! But he is, if there be no God in whom he 
may trust. He is, if there be no God he may worship. 
Is this not SGientificf 

^^But may not man worship Nature as his god and 
be as happy and contented as in the worship of any 
other being? Well, this, we would say in reply, de- 
pends upon the man. Religion is not a matter of 
taste, but some people persist in their endeavors to 
make it such, despite their consciences. This reminds 
me of the man who always contended that the buzzard 
was as good food as the turkey until the cook prepared 
one for dinner and he tried it, after which, in answer to 
the inquiry, whether he still thought the difference a 
matter of taste, said: '^Well, I can eat it, but Pve 
got no hankering after it.^^ Ignorance may "hanker^^ 
after any sort of religion to which it may happen to 
take a fancy; or it may, in its blindness, "hanker^^ 
after a certain god, through sheer drollery; but we 
want a being to worship, after whom an enlightened 
reason, free from all eccentricity, will "hanker,^^ 
There is too much of this just now — that our religion 
and our god is a matter of taste. This is one of the 
biggest devils in the camp of Israel. Mr. J. R. 
Seeley, of London, author of ^^Ecce Homo,^^ and re- 



84 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

cently of another book called ^^Natural Religion/' 
seeks in the latter to propagate this religious indiffer- 
entism. He has taken Mr. Herbert Spencer^s declara- 
tion in his ^^First Principles/^ ^^that there is a kernel 
of truth in all religions/^ and applied it to a system 
of '' Natural Religion/^ in which, he professes to think, 
we may find all comfort for our souls ! But we ask : 
How shall man worship Nature when his eye has 
caught sight of Nature's God? Can an enlightened 
reason worship something which it feels to be inferior 
to itself? Man knows that he is superior to any being 
on earth; that he is superior to Nature. He can baiHe 
Nature in her designs. He can chain her laws and 
suspend her operations. How can he worship her? 

Well, what shall he worship ? He must worship 
something. Is there any being in the universe su- 
perior to himself? We have seen that the supposi- 
tion that there is, is necessary to the solution of the 
problem of his existence with his moral nature and 
feeling of moral accountability. In this section we 
will enter more formally into the proof of the exist- 
ence of such a Being. Then let us observe : 

1. Man is not eternal. The race has not existed 
always. It had a beginning in time, and that rather 



THE OEIGIN OF MAN. 85 

recently. This is clearly established by the teachings 
of geology, and we suppose admitted by all. 

2. Man did not come by chance. It is not neces- 
sary to dwell upon this. The theory of chance is an 
exploded theory, and no longer demands serious at- 
tention. 

3. Man did not originate himself. This he could 
not do. No being is self-originated. To suppose this 
is absurd, because it is to suppose the cause and effect 
the same, which is impossible. That which does not 
exist is nothing. Nothing cannot originate some- 
thing. Now, as there was a time when there was no 
human being in existence, so there was a time when 
the first one, or ones, commenced to exist — because 
there are now such beings — and this certainly by a 
power outside of any human agency, as there was no 
such agency in existence ; hence man did not origi- 
nate himself. 

4. Man is not a product of Nature. We use the 
word nature here, to denote all those powers, law^s, 
and agencies of whatever kind, or by whatever name 
oalled, which we see operating in and around us ; 
leaving out, if possible, the idea of the presence, in 
them, of any supernatural power and wisdom. We 



86 THE OEIGIN OF MAN. 

assert that Nature^ with all her endowments^ without 
any supernatural power working in her^ could not pro- 
duce, in any number of ages, the human race, or a 
human being. In other words, Nature is not a sufficient 
cause to account for the existence of the human race* 
In proof of this we notice : 

(1) That every effect must have an adequate cause. 
This is a settled principle among men. Our minds 
compel us to the belief. This universe has a cause^ 
somewhere, sufficient to account for its existence. 
There is a power, somewhere, sufficient to produce it — 
a wisdom sufficient to arrange its machinery. 

(2) That there must not be in the effect more than 
there is in the power of the cause to produce or be- 
stow. If there is, then we have an effect without a 
cause, which is unlawful, 

Now in view of these fundamental principles, we 
assert that man cannot be a product of Nature, as de- 
fined, since there is more in man than Nature, ac- 
cording to the definition, could produce however long 
at work. There is more intelligence in one well de- 
veloped human mind than in all the animals preced- 
ing man. Besides he has a moral and religious na- 
ture which is entirely wanting in every other earthly 



THE OEIGIN OF MAN. 87 

being. To say that the germ of this moral and reli- 
gious nature was wrapped up in other forms and re- 
served to the proper time and place when and where 
it should make its appearance, and this solely under 
the guidance of Nature, without the aid of the Super- 
. natural, is to endow Nature as God. This is either 
Pantheism or Spiritual Materialism, both of which 
are absurd. This must forever bar the doctrine of 
Evolution, on strictly scientific ground, unless its ad- 
vocates will allow the presence and agency of the Su- 
pernatural, and, even then, all the difficulties of the 
theory are not removed. Man\s reason is different in 
kind from the so-called reason in brutes ; and, on the 
principle of uniformity in nature, and the principle 
that like produces like, with variations within certain 
limits, never extending to a totally different kind, 
man could not have been evolved from the lower or- 
ders of animals; certainly, at least, so far as his men- 
tal organism is concerned. 

It is no objection to say that the effect must be like 
the cause ; however this would be as hard on the Ma- 
terialist as on the Theist. But the principle that like 
produces like only applies to things in the material 
world, not to mind. Like produces like with allowa- 



88 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

ble variations within certain limits, always, perhaps, 
within the law of possible reversion — in the material 
world. But mind may produce things different. This 
is according to observation. Here we have a reserve, 
even, in the domain of instinct ; however, with a lim- 
itation here again. There is a limit beyond which, 
even the mind of man, being finite, cannot go. Noth- 
ing but an infinite mind can workup to the limit im- 
posed by contradiction; beyond which it cannot go. 
Thus, there is a limit, set in the very nature of things, 
upon that which may be produced. 

From whence then came man with all his wonder- 
ful powers, rational, moral, religious? We lay down 
the following as a guide to the answer : Ihere is a 
history of the origin of the world, including man, written 
in the very nature of the things which constitute it. The 
study of this history will reveal the fact that behind 
and beyond nature there is a Being infinitely superior 
to anything in nature. This is the one in whom man 
may trust, and whom he may worship. There is no 
other rational solution of the problem of this universe, 
and the existence of all that goes to make it up ; no 
other solution of the existence of man with all his won- 
derful endowments and responsibilities. Hence, 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 89 

5. 3Ian must have been created by a self-existing, and, 
therefore, Eternal, All-powerful, All-wise, and perfectly 
Holy Being, loho will hold him accountable for his conduct, 
and reward or punish him according to his deeds. This 
Beiug is worthy of man^s confidence and worship. 
This is the Orthodox Theistic position. 

Now^ if we reject this conception of the origin of 
man^ what theory will we accept ? How will we ac- 
count for the existence of the universe^ including man 
with his rational, moral, and religious endowments ? 
Mr. Calderwood says : ^^The logical alternatives open 
to us in seeking a solution of limited and restricted 
existence, are two : An infinite regress of finite causes, 
or a self-sufficient, eternal first-cause. The four theo- 
ries which have been offered come under the sweep 
of this duality of logical alternative. The Theistic 
doctrine, as a deliberate acceptance of the one alterna- 
tive, stands in logical opposition to all the o-ther three 
which, either accept the opposite alternative, or fail 
to deal with the essential features of the problem.^' 
^^Hand-Book of Moral Philosophy,^^ p. 224. 

Will we, as rational beings, accept the theory of 
an infinite regress of finite causes, to account for the 
existence of man and all other things, instead of the 



90 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

theory of a self-sufficient^ eternal first-cause? An in- 
finite regress of finite causes^ with all their changes in 
time, is an impossibility, as we have already seen. 
Why, then, resort to such a theory? Is it because we 
want to get rid of the idea of a personal God? The 
other three theories referred to by Mr. Calderwood, in 
the passage quoted above, are : Materialism, Pan- 
theism, and Polytheism. ^^The two last,^^ he says, 
'^are mixed and inconsistent^^ ; and we may add, so 
ridiculous as not to demand serious attention. The 
first, or Materialism, is the philosophy of many in 
this age. ''It is thorough-going Atheism.'^ It is 
under the necessity of resorting to an infinite regress 
of finite causes to account for the existence of the uni- 
verse. As we have seen, this is an absurdity. Be- 
sides it contradicts consciousness as to the spirituality 
of the mind. In fact, it is beset with a thousand 
errors and much mischief. 

^^But does the Theistic theory remove all the diffi- 
culties ? Is it not as easy to believe in a Self-existing, 
Self-acting, Self-unfolding universe, as to believe in a 
Self-existing, All-powerful, All- wise, personal God, as 
creator of the universe ?^^ We have here two objec- 
tions in one. Neither is new. We will answer them 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 91 

in order. As to difficulties, if we mean, by these, 
things incomprehensible to us, any theory of Cosmog- 
ony must be attended by a host of them. The Theist 
does not pretend to comprehend all things. Neither 
does the Theistic conception pretend to remove all dif- 
ficulties. The idea of a Self-existing, Eternal Being, 
presents a mystery whose depth we can never fathom. 
So with many things in connection with the theory. 

As to the ease or difficulty of belief, in the one or 
the other of the theories referred to, it seems to us 
there is no ground for comparison. But for the pres- 
ence of the darkness induced by sin, which helps us 
to understand something of an otherw^ise, inscrutable 
mystery. Atheism, to us, would be the greatest of all 
mysteries ! The idea of a power, which is limited only 
in the sphere of the contradictory, is an amazing mys- 
tery to us, and one which baffles every effort of reason 
to measure; but this sort of power, possessed by an 
All- wise and perfectly Holy Being, is more reconcila- 
ble to reason than to suppose such a power lodged in 
a blind principle, or an impersonal something called 
nature. 

But, whatever may be said of the origin of the uni- 
verse, we know that it must be the product of a self- 



92 THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 

existent^ eternal^ omnipotent^ omniscient^ and perfectly 
holy Something. This is certain: Either the God of 
the Orthodox Theist, or his God under another name, 
is the author of this universe. This is demanded as a 
rational solution of the problem of man's existence 
with all that he is, and all that he may be. Now we 
go further. The complete solution of the whole prob- 
lem requires that this Something, which produced all 
things, be Spiritual : for man has a Spiritual part; and 
the effect must not contain more than the cause. Here 
the objector says: ^^May we not reason the other 
way, and make the author of the universe physico- 
spiritual?'' This objection raises the question, or in- 
volves it, as to whether there may be creation ex nihilo. 
With this question we have nothing to do here. Our 
answer to the objection is: The cause may contain 
more than the effect, but not the reverse. Simple 
matter cannot produce Spirit. 

"But if there be a God, such as Theism claims, why 
have we evil in the world and so much suffering ?'' We 
answer, God is not responsible for the evil and suffer- 
ing in the world. Man is a free moral being, and by 
his own choice the element which has created all his 
trouble has been introduced. This element is sin; and 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 93 

is the factor generally left out when an attempt is made 
by the skeptic to solve the problem of the mysterious 
providence man is under here. It is on this account 
that so many of the attempted solutions of this prob- 
lem are awkward and unsatisfactory. Let any one 
look into Mr. J. S. Mill's ^^ Three Essays on Religion'' 
as a proof. ^^But this is a dogma of Revelation/' 
says one. So it is^ but no less a dogma of sober^ un- 
prejudiced reason. No supernatural revelation is nec- 
essary to prove that man is a sinner. This is stamped 
on his face, and may be read by any one whose eyes 
are free from the sand of the enemy. But it is very 
common for men to be blind to their own faults. Man 
does not like to own that he is a sinner. God made 
man upwright, but man fell from his uprightness^ and 
thereby ^'brought death and all its woe! " 

III. From the fact that man is a fallen, sinful being y 
as shown in chapter III.^ and that he was created by 
a holy God^ as shown in this chapter, loe infer that 
he is under the condemnation and wrath of his Maker and 
Governor, In fact, this is certain, 

1. From the testimony of Consciousness. Man is 
conscious of God's displeasure. His conscience con- 
demns him as a violator of God's law within his heart, 



94 THE OKIGIN OF MAN. 

and fills him with trembling in view of death and the 
Judgment. 

2. From the nature of many of the afflictions he 
has to suffer in this world. Man is sure^ when he 
thinks aright^ that God^ in his providence, is dealing 
with the race as a wise Governor with a set of erring 
subjects : So that the individual has to suflFer, riot for 
personal transgression only, but for the transgressions of 
others also. This is the key to the strange providence, 
with its mystery and cloud, the race is under here. 

3. From the fact that he has not fulfilled the de- 
sign of his Maker, but, by his sin, has frustrated the 
end of his moral manhood. 

IV. From the fact that man has a soul capacitated 
for spiritual enjoyment and suffering, as shown in 
i^hapter IV., and also from the fact that he was evi- 
dently created for a higher and nobler end than he 
has attained in this world, or can attain here, in his 
brief, sinful life, as shown in this and a preceding 
chapter, we infer, first, the doctrine of Final Cause 
with respect to him ; second, that it is possible, yea, 
probable, that he may live in another estate, after the 
death of his body, where he may be rewarded or pun- 
ished for his deeds here. 



THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 95 

We have now seen the nature and origin of man. 
Let us next inquire concerning his final cause. Why 
CAME HE? This is a question of the deepest interest. 



CHAPTER YI. 

DESIGN OF man's EXISTENCE HERE. 

We have made reference to the doctrine of Design 
in the preceding chapter. In this chapter we must 
discuss this doctrine more fully, notwithstanding the 
protest against such discussions by many parties. The 
doctrine of final cause has been the source of fruitful 
discussion for ages. Some scientific men and some 
philosophers think that this question ought never to 
have been raised, and even now would^ if possible^ 
banish it from the field of discussion as unworthy of 
our consideration. They are ready for the What and the 
How, but when the question Whyf is raised^ they put 
in a demurrer at once. But we must ask the question 
Whyf concerning things. When we have studied the 
nature of anything and its origin^ or how it came to be, 
the mind is compelled to ask, to what intent, or for 
what purpose was it made? Physicists and philoso- 
phers may say, ^^O, we have nothing to do with that 
question^' ; but when they do, they do not remove the 
question. It remains and demands an answer. One 
of the deepest questions in nature, concerning the 



DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 97 

things we see^ is, Why are they ? or for what purpose 
were they made ? The very fact that the mind, if not 
throttled, is compelled to ask this question and seek 
an answer to it shows that we intuitively believe that 
everything was made for a purpose, and that that pur- 
pose may generally be known. It shows further 
that, as far as we have time and opportunity, it is not 
only our privilege, but our duty also to inquire con- 
cerning that purpose. 

^^But,^^ says one, '' This is a question of Theology. ^^ 
So it is; and Theology is more important than Physi- 
ology and many other ^^ologies,^^ of which these very 
objectors often make so much, if a comparison is to 
be made from the highest point of vision. We have 
no disposition to alienate or divorce Science from 
Theology, but many scientific men do seem to have. 
Any effort, however, in this direction must prove 
abortive. Science and Theology refuse to be divorced^ 
and certainly the court of common-sense will never 
sever those whom God has joined together in in- 
dissoluble bands. As certainly as there is physical 
science, so certainly there is metaphysical science ; and 
as certainly as Astronomy is a branch of physical 
science, so certainly is Theology a branch of metaphys- 



98 DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 

ical science. Besides^ there is not a branch of physical 
science that has not its metaphysical side^ and that 
side is theological ; and the theological side is the light 
and life of the other side, even as the sun may be said 
to be the light and life of the world. 

In the following sections we will discuss as much 
of the doctrine of final cause or design as may be nec- 
essary to the elucidation of the matter as it relates to 
the purpose of man^s presence in this world. 

I. 

Man must have been sent into this world for some 
purpose. 

Nothing short of this position will satisfy the de- 
mands of reason. Then why offer any proof? The 
announcement is sufficient. Not for all. The in- 
tuitive power of some is very weak. The skepti- 
cism of others is very strong. Then, that our claim 
may be established, beyond a doubt, we ask all to 
consider the following arguments which are offered for 
the perfect satisfaction of all : 

1. The argument drawn from man\s capacities. 
These are so numerous and so great that we feel more 
or less bewildered in their presence. What shall we 



DliSIGN OF man's EXISTENCE HERE. 99 

select ? Let us look at his capacity for self-develop- 
ment and improvement. Judging by the past progress 
made^ what may we not conclude on this subject? 
May we set a limit ? Where ? Certainly there is a 
limit beyond which he cannot go^ but where may we 
place it ? We are not among those who believe that 
man came into this world in a savage state, little^ if 
any, above the brute ; and yet the race, we believe, 
had, as it were, its period of infancy in development 
and strength, and we are not sure that it has passed 
entirely beyond this period now. It may have reached 
its youth. Certainly not its full manhood; for on 
^very hand we see evidences of its mighty progress. 
The life-blood is heaving while the body is taking on 
ilesh and muscle. Where is the limit to its growth ? 
If we mistake not, the race has barely put off' its 
swaddling-clothes and entered upon the period of its 
youth. It is true that at different ages in the history 
of the race decay has made its appearance in different 
quarters as though the time of death were approach- 
ing, but time has dispelled the delusion. These fluc- 
tuations are natural, and yet admonitory. The race 
has its seasons. It has its clouds and sunshine. The 
winter is often hard and long, but it is premonitory 



100 DESIGN OF man's EXISTENCE HERE. 

It bespeaks the extra effort of nature in an abundant 
crop. Thus the race^ like nature, seems to have its 
periods of rejuvenation. 

If the above be true and the race has only entered 
upon its youth, what will its perfect manhood be ? If 
the race, as seems probable, in the main, at least, is in 
the bud and flower of its age, w^th an occasional drop- 
ping of matured fruit, what will the time of harvest 
be in the richness of its fullness of fruitage! Will 
any one say that this arrangement of indefinite im- 
provement was a mere chance ? Or was it the design 
or purpose of an All- wise Creator? Was not the race 
made to grow as well as the individual ? And is not 
this law of progress an evidence of intelligent pur- 
pose or design ? It is true we have different races of 
beings which do not make this progress. Why? 
Because of the absence of the law of progress, which 
absence also shows the design of the great Ruler. 

Again : Man^s capacity for discovery and invention 
furnishes proof positive that he was sent into the 
world for a purpose. This is closely related to the 
preceding, and is that on which his progress depends. 
He has the ability to investigate, and out of the mate- 
rials placed within his reach by the One who sent him 



DESIGN OF man's EXISTENCE HERE. 101 

here, to invent many things for his own convenience 
and comfort. And what shall we say of his inven- 
tions ? Out of nature's storehouse has been drawn by 
him the riches of a lavish hand wherewith his art 
seeks to adorn and beautify, comfort and bless all 
who will use their talents according to the purpose of 
him who is the Father of all of us. Hence, comes by 
man's inventive genius the labor-saving implement, 
the means of rapid transit, the instrument for the 
transmission of thought, as it were upon the very 
wings of the lightning, and the machine by which we 
may hear and see our fellow- men for a thousand miles! 
Yea, out of this same storehouse, by man's wonderful 
capacity for invention, comes the poetry of a thou- 
sand ages with which the world is baptized in sweet- 
ness ! Was man not created and placed here for some 
purpose? 

The great difficulty with man is in the abuse of his 
powers. But this abuse does not invalidate the claim 
that we make at the head of this section. Man was 
made and placed here with noble powers for the ac- 
complishment of a noble work. That he misuses his 
gifts, abuses his capacities, and scorns his high calling 
does not disprove our claim that he was created and 



102 DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 

placed here for some purpose — does not disprove the 
doctrine of Design. 

2. The argument drawn from man^s moral account- 
ability. That man is morally accountable for what he 
does here cannot^ reasonably^ be questioned ; and that 
he is accountable proves^ beyond all doubt, that he 
was created and placed here for some purpose. In 
man's case moral accountability does prove the 
doctrine of design ; while its absence in the case of 
other beings does not disprove the existence of this 
doctrine as claimed by orthodox theism. Moral ac- 
countability is not necessary to the establishment of 
the claims involved in the doctrine of design, but the 
doctrine of design does reach out and embrace moral 
accountability. It is not necessary to say much under 
this head. The matter is too plain to need much illus- 
trating. Of course, if man is accountable to any one 
for the doing or not doing of any particular thing, the 
fact fixes the doctrine of design beyond dispute. If 
there were no purpose there could be no accountability,, 
though there may be purpose where there is no ac- 
countability, as in the case of all creatures not pos- 
sessing reason. 

3. The argument drawn from the perfections of 



DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 103 

God. Nature teaches us much concerning the perfec- 
tions of God, his power, wisdom, etc. We argue 
these from the greatness, multitude, and completeness 
of his works; and, necessarily, we come to the con- 
clusion that God is so wise that he cannot be guilty of 
folly. And yet he is if he ever made a being to no 
end, for no purpose. It may be suggested that God 
creates simply for his own amusement, but this is con- 
trary to the idea of wisdom. This is reducing God to 
the level of an idiot who revels in his own vain fan- 
cies without any high or noble purpose in what he 
does. Of a wise man we always think as of one hav- 
ing great and noble ends in view; not one doing aim- 
less and foolish things. Shall we think more meanly 
of God who formed this universe? God is not a 
child sporting himself with toys. From out the 
heights and depths and breadths of all things God^s 
voice comes asking us all this question, Am not I 
God? 

Man himself does not want to be thought guilty of 
aimless things, because it is a reflection on his rational 
nature. As a rational being he is supposed to have, 
and he wants to be supposed to have, a reason for 
everything he does. This is his purpose. It is the 



104 DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 

why of his nobler nature. Would we dehumanize 
him ? He will not submit. With all his wickedness, 
he is, so far, proud of his likeness to Deity.. The truth 
is, it is impossible for a rational being to do a perfectly 
aimless thing. Even instinct has its ends. Reason 
much more. Design bespeaks intelligence, and intel- 
ligence must have its ends. The man who wishes to 
banish the doctrine of design from physics or meta- 
physics is an atheist at heart. He would get rid of 
God if he could. I ask, would this help our science, 
our morals, or our hopes ? Why, such a man is not 
only an atheist, but, in the language of a certain old 
book, to which we have hitherto made no appeal, he is 

difool. 

II. 

Man was created and put here for different pur- 
poses, among which there is a chief purpose or end. 

To the writer this seems to need no proof, but to 
others proof may seem to be necessary. For these we 
oifer the following: 

1. Man is certainly capacitated for the accomplish- 
ment of many different purposes, and for the attain- 
ment of many different ends. To illustrate : He has 
the capacity to till the ground, to sow, and to cultivate. 



and to reap. He has the capacity to invent machinery 
wherewith to lighten his labor. He has the capacity 
to organize society and to rule over it. He has a 
moral and religious capacity^ the end of which he finds 
in leading a moral and religious life — in worship. He 
is capable of doing many things and reaching many 
ends which his Creator doubtless had in view when he 
created and placed him here. Can any one doubt 
this ? For what was water made? For one purpose 
alone ? AVas it not made to moisten the earth and 
produce and propagate the growth of vegetation ? Was 
it not made to slake the thirst of man and beast? Was 
it not made as a natural element for fish and all living 
things which inhabit the sea? Likewise^ was it not 
made for the great purposes of commerce among the 
nations^ as well as for many other purposes ? 

Again : Was the air made for no other purpose than 
to enable man and other animals to breathe? Was it 
not also made as the natural element of the bird ? 
Are there not many other purposes it serves ? Any 
mere tyro in knowledge ought to be able to answer 
these questions. Man^ in all his interests and rela- 
tionships, capacities, aims, and ends, is the most com- 
plex being in all the world. Shall we, for a moment, 



106 DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 

doubt that his Creator designed him to answer many- 
different purposes ? 

2. When there are different purposes for which a 
being is made, or placed in a certain position, there 
must be a chief purpose or end. No two purposes, in 
the creation of an individual, can be exactly the same. 
To suppose they can be is absurd. It is contrary to 
the law of unity and the law of variety. It violates 
equally the fundamental principles of logic and math- 
ematics. A man may have two or more purposes in 
view in the formation of a machine, but one of those 
must be the chief purpose or end. This is the final 
cause in the construction of the machine. Unques- 
tionably, man was made and placed here for differ- 
ent purposes or ends : all but one of these must be 
subordinate. In the creation of everything there is 
a chief end in comparison of which every other end 
must be a minor one. The chief end for which man 
was created is the final cause of his being ; and the 
final cause of man's existence in this world may be 
the final cause of his existence in a future world, sup- 
posing he is to exist in a future state. Of this, how- 
ever, we could speak only in the light of a Supernat- 
ural revelation. At present, we are concerned only 



DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 107 

with his existence here. Why came he ? This is the 
question to which we seek an answer. 

III. 

Is it possible for us to discover God^s chief end or 
aim in sending man into the world ? 

Many think it is not. But we do not see why we 
may not. We believe we may. To this end let us 
consider : 

1. God\s chief end in sending man into the world 
must be that which might have been attained by the 
proper exercise of all his positively bestowed capaci- 
ties or powers. Certainly, it could not be above or 
below this. Water is expected to seek its level, but 
not to rise above it. God has a right to expect man 
to do what he is capable of doing, but not more. 
Thus his capacities indicate the end God had in view 
in creating and placing him here. '' Very well/^ 
says the objector, " man has the capacity for doing 
evil; was this the end, or any part of it, for which he 
was placed here? This is a fair objection and must 
be answered. Let the reader observe that man^s ca- 
pacity to do evil was not bestowed as a gift by his 
Creator, but was simply incidental in the creation of 



108 DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 

a free moral being. Free moral agency in the crea- 
ture always implies the ability to do wrong, and it 
was the failure on man^s part to exercise the capacity 
God had given him for right-doing that created in man 
the positive capacity for wrong-doing. Evil, in the first 
instance, was thus brought about in a negative way ; 
that is by disobedience. After this there was the pos- 
itive inclination and desire for evil-doing. This, we 
think, clears our claim of the objection, and makes it 
plain that God's chief end, in sending man into the 
world, must be that which might have been attained 
by the proper exercise of all of his positively bestowed 
capacities. Any other view — allowing that man was 
created for some purpose — promulgates the doctrine : 
^^ Let us do evil that good may come.'' But our po- 
sition is more fully elucidated in the following items : 
(1) That which might have been attained, by the 
proper exercise of all man's positively bestowed capac- 
ities, must be the sum of man's duty here. Of course 
it cannot be man's duty to do that for the doing of 
which he has never received any ability. Ability in 
that which is right carries with it obligation, and 
moral inability, created by voluntary disobedience, 
does not excuse. Reason justifies this position. 



DESIGN OF ISfAN'S EXISTENCE HERE. 109 

(2) The fulfillment of the sum of man^s duty here 
must be equal to God^s chief end in sending him here. 
This must be true since God could not have a purpose^ 
concerning man^ above what could be expected of 
him, unless God can have a chief end above his chief 
end, which is absurd. Evidently man was designed 
to fill a place, to perform a work, to do a duty. Now 
if man had filled his place, performed his work, and 
done his duty, he would have fulfilled the chief end 
of God in sending him here. 

(3) God^s chief end in sending man here must be 
equal to what should be man^s chief end while he is 
here. So that if we can determine what should be 
man^s chief end while he is here, we will have deter- 
mined what is God^s chief end in sending him here. 
By studying man^s capacities thoroughly, we find that 
he is capable of honoring God by obedience ; and by 
studying the relative value of things, we find that hon- 
oring God by perfect obedience is the highest, noblest 
end man can have in this world ; hence, to honor God 
by perfect obedience should be the chief end of man. 
Then God^s chief end in sending man into this world 
was and is that man should glorify him by doing his 
will. God^s will is always right ; therefore, by doing 



110 DESIGN OF MAN^S EXISTENCE HERE. 

God^s will^ man does what is right and thus secures 
his own happiness. '' Virtue is its own reward. ^^ 
As to how man is to know God^s will, and hence his 
whole duty, is another question. Then, 

2. To make our divisions complete, and sum up 
the whole — God^s chief end, in man^s creation and 
existence here, is his own glory and the happiness of 
his intelligent creatures. 

In the next chapter let us inquire, Whither is he 
OOING ? or concerning the future existence of man. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

So far we have considered man^s nature and origin^ 
and the great end of his existence here. We have 
seen that he is a free, moral, confiding, religious, 
fallen, sinful, physico-spiritual being; and, in consid- 
eration of these things, we have concluded. First : 
That he was constituted with reference to moral 
accountability and rewards or punishments by a moral, 
intelligent Being, who will hold him to account for 
his conduct, and reward or punish him according to 
his deeds. Second : That he was constituted with ref- 
erence to the exercise of religious faith and worship, 
by a Self-existing, Eternal, All-powerful, All-wise, 
Holy and Spiritual Being whom he should love and 
worship. Third : That he is under the condemnation 
and wrath of God on account of his fallen, sinful con- 
dition, as well as his own personal transgression, for 
which he suffers much even in this world. Fourth : 
That, having a soul capacitated for spiritual happi- 
ness or misery, and having been created for higher 
^nd nobler ends than any he has attained in this world 



112 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

or can attain here under the influence of sin, he is 
likely to live in another estate, after the death of his 
body, where he is liable to great suffering if he die 
unreconciled to, or in a condition of alienation from 
God. Now, to enforce this last conclusion, and fully 
open the way for the discussion of the question of our 
future existence, and the souPs liability to suffering 
after the death of the body, let us observe, 

1. Tliat sin must produce suffering. We do not mean 
by this that all suffering, mental and physical, in all the 
departments of nature, in all ages of the world, is the 
result of sin. But we do mean that sin, and all sin, 
must produce suffering, sooner or later, somewhere, 
somehow, in some one. Sin and misery are indissolu- 
ble companions. They are conjoined as cause and effect. 
If we sin, knowingly, our consciences will goad us. We 
may succeed in putting them to sleep for a time, but, 
if so, they will sting us all the more when aroused or 
awakened. Some hush the voice of their consciences 
for a season, but the pent-up fires will inevitably burst 
forth, sooner or later, and the soul will be driven to 
despair, or consumed with sorrow! There can be no 
escape from a condemning conscience. It is a sin- 
hating God^s messenger of vengeance to the guilty. 



THE FUTUEE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 113 

The sinner need not go outside himself to find an in- 
strument for his condemnation and punishment. If 
he is a voluntary transgressor^ and there is no doubt 
that every sane adult human being in all the earth is 
such, he carries within him the agent of his own tor- 
ture. Conscience may not be the only instrument by 
which his sufferings may be promoted. No. These 
may be multiplied by his evil-doing till all the fires of 
hell are fully kindled. 

The sinner must be punished somehow, somewhere, 
at some time, by some onCy or some-thing. Man is a 
sinner and, on this account, obnoxious to punish- 
ment. He does not like to be called a sinner. He 
will call sin a mistake and man^s sinful nature a iveak- 
ness that he may soften the matter a little, or that he 
may shut off some of the thoughts involved in the 
idea of sin. But a violated law demands the punish- 
ment of sin and conscience reveals that law. The 
justice of God demands the punishment of sin; the 
moral order of His government requires it; hence sin» 
must produce suflFering. The nature and extent of the 
suffering to which man as a sinner is liable must, we 
think, depend upon the nature and extent of the sins of 
which he has been guilty, the circumstances in which 



114 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

they are involved^ and the character of the being 
sinned against. But sin must be followed by suffering. 
2. It is impossible for all sin to be punished in this 
life. Many persons die in the act of committing great 
sin. It is not sufficient^ in such cases^ to say that 
death is the punishment of their sin. Deaths though 
appointed to all, may be a special judgment to some; 
but certainly not to all who die in the act of sinning. 
Besides, death could not be, in reason, the complete 
punishment of a sin so great as to be visited with 
death as a special judgment upon the sinner. All 
must die anyway, sooner or later ; and to deprive one 
of a few years of life, in this world, would not, could 
not, compensate, as a punishment, for the evil which one 
might work in a moment here. Many die a natural 
death after long years of sin in this world, where they 
have been permitted, by an inscrutable providence, to 
enjoy much ill-gotten gain. Surely, their sin is not 
punished here. ^^ O yes,^^ says one, ^^ their consciences 
sting them all the while — in this way they are pun- 
ished.^^ We reply, impossible. Conscience, in such 
cases, is throttled, or the life would be different. Be- 
sides, the stings of conscience, however terrible, can 
never expiate guilt. All sin is against an infinite God, 



THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 115 

and demands such punishment as the sinner himself 
cannot suffer here ; therefore he must suffer in the future^ 
after the death of his body, or one of three things must 
take place. First, Death must end all, with him: 
or, Second J Death must change the moral status 
OF his soul, and he must be pardoned without 
expiation : or, Third, God must supernaturally 
reveal to him a way of escape, and he must 

AVAIL HIMSELF OF IT. Then, 

I. Does death end all with us? In seeking an an- 
swer to this questibn we ought to inquire : First, Is 
there any good ground to think that it does, not over- 
balanced by reasons to think that it does not? If so, 
the whole matter is at an end so far as reason is con- 
cerned. But, if there is no good ground to think that 
it does, then we ought to inquire : Second, What are 
the reasons, if any, that it does not ? 

1. Then is there any good ground for thinking that 
death ends all with us? Rigid logical demonstration 
here is impossible. No man can prove that death ends 
all with us. However, we are not seeking logical dem- 
onstration, but the probabilities in the case. Then, in 
order to determine this question, we ought to find out, if 
possible, what death is, and the extent of its effects upon 



116 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

US. Here we might indulge in many subtleties with 
respect to what death is ; but this is unnecessary and, 
in fact, improper here. For, as Butler says, ^^ We 
know not at all what death is in itself, but only some 
of its effects.^^ Modern inquiry has not changed this 
conclusion. The most recent and searching investiga- 
tion leaves us greatly in the dark on the question : 
What is death ? Herbert Spencer says, in substance, 
it is a failure to correspond with environment. But this 
is not telling us what death is, ^^but only some of its 
eftects,^^ as Butler says in the quotation above. If 
we could perfectly define temporal death this would 
advance us nothing, in this inquiry, unless we could 
show what effect, if any, it has upon our souls. For, 
if it could be proved that death ends all with the 
body, this would not prove that it ends all with our 
souls. Death, so far as we can see, is nothing positive. 
It is the absence of life and that, too, the life of the 
body, not the soul. A plant may wither root and 
branch. It is dead. But the plant has no soul. The 
case is different with us. Our bodies may fare as the 
plant, die and dissolve, but, so far as we can judge, 
death has no effect upon our souls, which are, essen- 
tially, ourselves. 



THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAX. 117 

Death, then, in no wise, implies, necessarily, the 
destruction of the soul. Butler says: '' There is noth- 
ing more certain than that the reason of the thing shov)s 
us no connection between death and the destruction 
of living agents.^' See Butler^s ^^ Analogy, ^^ pp. 80- 
94. Philosophy teaches us the indestructibility of 
matter. Well, if matter may not be destroyed, why 
should we suppose that mind may perish entirely ? 
Certainly there is something in our bodies more pow- 
erful than our bodies. Shall this something perish, 
yet the body remain ? Let us be scientific. If the 
doctrine of the Correlation and Conservation of mate- 
rial force, as expounded and promulgated by Modern 
science, be true, what is to become of the immaterial 
or spiritual forces of the universe ? Of course the 
doctrine of the resurrection is not under consideration 
here, but solely the effect of death upon us as beings 
endowed with a dual nature. Where is the ground 
for thinking death ends all with us? Death may be 
the destruction of our bodies, which we know to be 
compounded ; but we have good reasons to believe, 
from the testimonies of consciousness, that our souls 
are simple and uncompounded, and, therefore, beyond 
the reach of his analysis. Since, then, we have no 



118 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAK. 

good ground for thinking that death ends all with us,, 
we next inquire, 

2. Are there any good reasons for thinking it does 
not? Here let it be observed that, in seeking an an- 
swer to this question, we shall not attempt to establish 
the immortality of the soul. This would not be per- 
tinent at present. All we are after here is to show 
that there are good reasons for believing that death 
does not end all with us ; that there are good argu- 
ments to support the belief that7i;6 shall live after the 
death of our bodies. There is a difference between 
the doctrine oi future existence and the doctrine of the 
immortality of the soul, as to their extent and the 
source of evidence, as well as the evidence itself, by 
which the two are established. The one may be es- 
tablished by Reason; the other must be established^ 
if it may be done, by a Supernatural Revelation. Our 
existeiiee depends upon the tvill of God. It is not a 
necessity. Dr. Calderwood has marked this distinction. 
^^Hand-Book of Moral Philosophy,'' p. 261. Now 
we give the following reasons why death does not end 
all with us : 

(1) The sinner's dread of death. — He dreads death^ 
not as death, but as the entrance to a future state of 



THE FUTUKE EXISTENCE OP MAN. 119 

existence where, he feels, he is liable to punishment. 
Annihilation would be infinitely preferable to him, no 
doubt, if he had his choice. Why is it that the fear 
of death is universal among men ? Is it because they 
believe it to bean eternal sleep? an utter annihila- 
tion ? We think not. There are very few, compar- 
atively, who believe death is annihilation. A belief 
in the future existence of the soul is almost universal. 
This is proven by the religious history of the race. 
'' Yes,^^ says one, '' but many persons, especially among 
savages, seem to court death as a favor rather than to 
dread it as an evil.^^ True. But these are only ex- 
ceptions to a general rule, and are accounted for on 
the ground of a superstitious belief that to sacrifice 
themselves purchases for them special privileges and 
blessings in the future. Generally men draw back, 
from the very thought of death, with horror, and, 
especially, if they have no hope of reconciliation with 
God against whom they feel they have offended. Even 
many, who have a reasonable hope of pardon and ac- 
ceptance with God, dread death, lest they, at last, 
when it is too late, be found unprepared. It is also 
true that a spirit of Stoicism, affected or real, seems 
to possess the breasts of some, and they appear to be 



120 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

unconcerned about the results of death; but^ doubtless, 
in most cases, this is no more than the appearance of 
indifference. 

Nor will it do, in most cases, or, even in many, to 
trace this dread of death to sorrow at the thought of 
separation from friends and loved ones. This is not 
it. The dread, of which we speak, has its origin in 
the conscious moral condition of the soul, and sense 
of accountability to God, and not in natural aifection. 
The one has reference to our relations to God and the 
Judgment, the other to our relations to man. 

(2) The apprehensions of a Judgment to come. — 
This is closely related to the preceding and may be 
considered the complement of it. The souPs dread of 
the death of the body has its ground in the souPs 
dread of the Judgment, and beyond that of a death 
that may never die. Here the sense of accountability 
in the soul finds its counterpart which ^a;6s the im- 
pression of a future life. 

This sentiment is natural to man because the sense 
of responsibility and accountability, on which it rests, 
is natural to man. The one must exist as long as the 
other; and, taken together, they constitute an argu- 
ment for the future existence of the soul which cannot 



THE FUTUKE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 121 

be, successfully, rebutted by any of the Materialistic 
or Agnostic assumptions of the day. 

Neither can they be set aside by mere desire on the 
part of those who hate the doctrine — if there be such. 

Dr. McCosh says : '' That it is this belief in a com- 
ing Judgment which is the deepest natural feeling, is 
evident from the conceptions entertained of the future 
world in the popular superstitions. The doctrine of 
the transmigration of souls appears in the earliest 
superstitions of the world, and has been entertained 
in all the later ages by the most widely diffused forms 
of heathenism. According to it the soul, as a punish- 
ment, passes after death from one animal body to 
another. The Egyptians placed a searching judg- 
ment-day, conducted by Osiris, on the foreground 
of all their representations. The Greeks had a Mi- 
nos and a Rhadamanthus as judges in the region of 
the dead, and placed there the stone of Sisyphus, 
the sieve-drawing of Danaides, and the wheel of 
Ixion. The other world, in the common conception 
of mankind, has been the place of Shades and has 
always had a Tartarus as well as an Elysium.'^ — ^^ Di- 
vine Government,^^ p. 516. 

This sentiment being natural to man, is, of course, 



122 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

almost, if not quite, universal. Dr. McCosh further 
says: ^^ Every man feels as if he had at the end of his 
earthly career, to appear before his Governor, and as 
if there were to be a reckoning at the close of the 
day of life. The time and the manner of the Judg- 
ment are unknown, but the Judgment itself and the 
law are so far revealed. There is a feeling of this 
kind — originating in deep internal principles, and 
strengthened by the observation of the instances of 
retribution in the providence of God — haunting man- 
kind all throughout their life, and coming on them, 
impressively, at a dying hour. 

^^This we hold to be the grand central feeling of 
mankind, in reference to the world to come ; it is an 
expectation, or rather an apprehension, of a day of 
reckoning. Such a day of accounts evidently implies 
a future and a separate state. This, if we do not mis- 
take, is by far the strongest argument for a future 
life. We believe it to be the one which, in fact, car- 
ries conviction to the minds of men.^^ — ^^ Divine Gov- 
ernment,^^ p. 514. 

(3) The complete end of God^s moral govern- 
ment cannot be reached in this life. Any one may 
see this. God must be the moral Governor of this 



THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 123 

world; and having begun a work, he certainly will 
finish it. But not in this life. The conditions nec- 
essary to its completion cannot be supplied here; 
therefore there must be a future life where it can be 
completed. Theiiy Death does not end all. This is 

SCIENTIFIC. 

Now, as death does not end all with us, it follows 
that man, being a sinner, must suffer in the future, 
after the death of his body; or. Death must change 
the moral status of his soul and he must be pardoned 
without expiation; or, God must supernaturally reveal 
to him a way of escape and he must avail himself of 
it. Then, 

II. Does death change the moral status of his souly 
and may he be pardoned without expiation f There are 
two parts to this question. We will consider them 
separately. 

1. Then, does death change the moral status of 
man^s soul? It is not necessary to say much in an- 
swer to this question. The common-sense of mankind 
is not in much danger "of being duped into the belief 
of a thing so absurd. The thought has no support 
from Reason. If it is so highly probable, as has been 
shown, that death has no power to destroy the soul. 



124 THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 

how can it reach any quality in the soul so as to trans- 
form its moral state? Death is not a regeneration, 
nor can it be. It is a passage. Then it cannot make 
the fallen sinful soul loyal to God. Crushing the 
adder beneath the heel does not remove from it the 
disposition to bite if it could be restored to life. If 
a man dies, alienated from God in his heart, he will 
hate God after death. Man, to be perfectly loyal to 
God, must have the moral state of his soul changed; 
but death has no power to work the change. Tem- 
poral death cannot reach and transform moral quality. 
2. Can man be pardoned without expiation ? There 
are many who seem to hope to be. This is the hope 
of all Deists, and all others who make human merit 
the ground upon which they build their expectations 
of future happiness. Nothing could be more absurd. 
This is, really, a hope that God will sacrifice his jus- 
tice, his holiness, his honor, and his law written in 
the heart, for the sake of those who are mean enough 
to think that, in the transaction, God would be the 
one more particularly accommodated ! After all that 
was said on the necessity of the punishment of all sin, 
we do not consider it necessary to add much here. 
The violation of a simple law of nature is generally 



THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MAN. 125 

punished by a providential provision. Surely then 
God will not excuse us in our disobedience to his 
moral law written in our hearts. If we believe in the 
Reign of law, why not take a broad view ? Justice 
demands that the guilty be punished. This is right 
in civil governments ; is it not right in the moral 
government ? So far as we can see, if every citizen 
of God^s moral government is to be treated impartially 
there must be a wide difference between the future 
state of those who practice virtue here for its own sake, 
and for God^s sake, and those who live here in the 
neglect of both except when it happens to suit them 
to live otherwise. 

Now we have the matter reduced to this alternative: 
Either y man, being a sinner, must suffer after death, or 
God must supernaturally reveal to him a way of escape 
and he must avail himself of it. 



CHAPTER yill. 

MAN NEEDS A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION, ETC. 

Near the close of the preceding chapter we reached 
the conclusion that man must suffer in the future, af- 
ter the death of his body, or God must supernaturally 
reveal to him some way of escape and he must avail 
himself of it. This conclusion was reached from 
facts and considerations which had gone before and 
that need not be repeated here. Now we propose to 
present some further considerations showing man's 
need of a Supernatural Revelation, and inquire what 
Reason indicates with respect to it. 

I. Man needs a Supernatural Revelation on many 
accounts. Some of these we give below. We can- 
not give all. This is impossible in a work so limited. 
But we will give some of the principal ones. 

1. Sin is a supernatural spiritual disease — though 
hereditary and universal — which must produce a super- 
natural death unless reached and removed by a super- 
natural remedy. First : Sin is a spiritual disease. It 
is seated in the soul; though it affects the body also. 
Such is the relation of body and soul that what affects 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 127 

the one must, in some measure, affect the other. This 
is so in the workings of natural physical disease; it 
must be so in the workings of a supernatural spiritual 
disease. Whether the soul of each individual is trans- 
mitted by the ordinary laws of generation or sepa- 
rately created, is a question with which we are not 
concerned here. In either case, the character of sin, 
and the nature of the relation between soul and body, 
is sufficient to account for the universal defilement of 
the race, and insure the transmission of the sinful na- 
ture from the father to the son. Second : Sin is a 
supernatural disease. It is the result of the violation 
of a supernatural law. '^How is it inherited, then, 
through the operations of natural law?^^ This is a 
scientific question that requires a scientific answer. 
It shall be given. This is it: One of the greatest pe- 
culiarities of the Supernatural is the ability to operate 
through natural channels without being seen, God has 
this power, and he has allowed Sin and Satan the use 
of it, in a limited degree, for a time. How much 
<jrod^s will, in the form of a penal judgment, has to 
do with the matter of the natural sinfulness of our 
race, as it is sometimes called, we will not say. We 
Lave nothing to do with such a question here. Our 



128 A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 

position is that sin is a supernatural disease and is 
transmitted through the operations of natural law. 
Third : Sin must produce a Supernatural Spiritual 
death unless reached and removed by a supernatural 
remedy. This is inevitable. Every tendency of sin 
is to death of some sort. It not only, necessarily, 
makes the soul miserable, it alienates the soul from 
God, and, thus, produces eternal death. Eternal 
alienation from God is eternal death ; at least, in 
part. Therefore man needs a Supernatural Revelation 
which provides a supernatural remedy for the disease 
of his soul ; a remedy of universal efficacy ; to be ap- 
plied by supernatural agency upon the conditions ap- 
pointed by God himself. 

2. Sin has produced darkness in man^s mind, and 
thereby led him into many dark and wretched ways ; 
so that he w^anders in many devious paths. He 
needs a supernatural light by which he may be guided 
out of this darkness. The great difficulty is, man 
does not realize his need. He thinks he is in the 
light. He knows not his own misery. This makes 
a supernatural revelation all the more necessary. Sin 
has such a blinding, stupefying power upon his soul 
that he sees not his danger. He needs God^s enlight- 
ening and warning word. 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 129 

3. Reason says, there is no hope in any means that 
man may devise for his own relief. For, in the first 
place, he can never see his way out of the darkness 
by which he is surrounded. In the second place, if 
he should hit upon a plan, and he has upon thou- 
sands, as the many religions of the world testify, it 
could do no good. From our knowledge of the na- 
ture of his mind and the condition of his heart, we 
may safely infer that any plan he might hit upon 
would be insufficient; also dishonoring to the oflFended 
party. Besides, man, being the offender, has no right 
to arrange terms of reconciliation. He may sue for 
peace, he might ask for pardon ; but, unfortunately, 
he has no disposition to do either in the right spirit. 
He is deeply interested, and seems to seek the light,, 
but he seems to seek it as if he did not want to find 
it. He is at war with God and his own soul ! He 
sees this and professes to lament it ; but, judging from 
his conduct in many cases, he is not sorry for it. 
Thus, he often takes delight in his own shame and 
wretchedness! So that there is no ground for hope 
in anything he may devise for his own relief. Thus, 
Reason passes judgment upon itself, as it were, by say- 
ing, there is no hope in any provision of its own ; but 





130 A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 

says: ^^ There is hope. The light is not all gone. 
The darkness is not yet complete. ^^ 

^^ Where then is hope?^^ the anxious soul inquires. 
Reason responds: " In the goodness of God.^^ '' But/^ 
says the trembling soul, ^^have we any ground to be- 
lieve that God will be good to his enemies ?^^ Reason 
replies: ^^We have. There is proof of his goodness 
to us in many things, and this leads us to hope for it 
in others. Man, even in his fallen condition, is the 
beneficiary of God^s goodness.^^ This appears, 

(1) In the provisions he has made, in creation, for 
man^s happiness. He, evidently, constituted him with 
reference to the circumstances He saw would surround 
him; and He provided for man's comfort in many 
things. 

(2) In the warnings he has given man against dan- 
gers; and against the many foes he has to encounter 
in this world. 

(3) In the remedies He has provided for man 
against the natural evils to which he is subject on 
every hand. For disease, for instance, there are rem- 
edies provided in nature. His goodness, in short, is 
manifested in a thousand ways and in as many things. 

But let us look at the nature of this hope. It is 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 131 

not a hope that we may escape, as criminals, from the 
law against which we have offended. No. Such a 
hope as this could not rest upon the goodness of God. 
Nor could it be supported by Reason. It is not a 
hope that God^s goodness is so great that He will not 
allow, even the guilty to suffer for the " mistakes ^^ (?) 
they have made here; that He will relax the law and 
remit the penalty so that the guilty will go unpun- 
ished. No. This is the hope of many, but not the 
one offered by a sound reason. Reason declares all 
such hope false, because it rests upon the assumption: 
First: That sin is a small matter. Second: That 
there is no meaning to be attached to the word justice 
in God^s moral government. Third: That the di- 
vine law may be relaxed; all of which is false. What, 
then, is this hope ? It is the hope that God, in his 
goodness, will give light, and reveal to man the way 
out of the darkness induced by sin; the way of escape 
from the dangers of sin. This hope has had a place 
in the bosom of many a heathen man, and he has 
yearned for that which infidels despise and deride. 
This is proved by the fact that in every religion on 
earth, reduced to a system, this thought finds expres- 
ision in some way or other. Many of the philosophers 



132 A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 

amoDg the Greeks felt that a supernatural Revela- 
tion from God was desirable, and believed it might be 
given; and so taught. See ^^ Home's Introduction/^ 
vol. I. ch. I. 

4. The light of Nature is not sufficient for the guid- 
ance of man. There is not light enough in Nature to 
bring man out of the darkness induced by sin. There 
is not light enough in Nature to dispel this darkness. 
Clouds hang over man's pathway; thick darkness en- 
compasses him; he needs supernatural light. The 
only ray of true light that reaches his pathway is the 
hope of which we have spoken ; that is, that God will 
reveal the way, bring help, give relief. 

Again, there is no power in Nature to bring the 
soul back to God purified and reconciled. There is 
no remedy in Nature for the healing of the soul. Man 
has sinned. He is alienated from God. He must be 
brought back in love to his Father's house ; but Na- 
ture can find no means by which the prodigal may 
be rescued and returned in his right mind. Natural 
Religion is insufficient. It can never fully satisfy the 
demands of an intelligent Reason. There is no re- 
ligion on earth to-day, devised by man, or discovered 
in the light of Nature, which is satisfactory to an en- 



A SUPERNATUKAL BEVEL ATION NEEDED. 133 

lightened Reason : it condemns every one of them as 
insufficient. Some may object to this sort of double 
vision of Reason, on the ground that it makes Reason 
•declare its own insufficiency, and, yet, point the way 
to a Supernatural Revelation as the only hope of 
escape. But this objection is useless. The thing ob- 
jected to is a part of the Province of Reason. Reason 
reveals the existence of God. It also reveals man^s 
sinful condition ; and feeling its own inability to dis- 
cover the proper relief, it points to God as man^s only 
hope. But, 

5. Let us notice some other matters which show the 
necessity of a Supernatural Revelation. Such a rev- 
elation is necessary, 

(1) To confirm and expound the teachings of Na- 
tural Theology. There is a Theology in Nature. Man 
sees it, and is ever trying to found a religion upon it ; 
but, owing to the darkness in his own mind, the light 
of Nature is so faint his soul is never fully satisfied 
with it. He is ever in doubt on many questions of 
the deepest interest, and must remain so as long as he 
is left to this source for light to guide him. He knows 
there is religious truth, but how much and of what 
value he is unable to determine. Nature cannot ex- 



134 A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 

plain herself to him. But if he had the benefit of her 
intensest light he would still be in the deepest dark- 
ness on many questions her light would only serve to 
raise in his mind — questions of the greatest moment 
to him. But Natural Theology is perfectly enigmat- 
ical to man without Supernatural Theology. At least 
it is so on many points. 

(2) A supernatural revelation is necessary to set 
forth man^s true relations to God on the one hand and 
to Nature on the other; also the perfect relations of 
these to each other. Man is conscious of a double 
relationship in this world — to God^ on the one hand, 
and to Nature, on the other — with a strange mixture 
of conflicting interests and evils. Now^ Nature 
seems to be his friend, now^ his enemy, as he quaffs 
her cups. Behind, and above Nature, he sees Another 
whom he recognizes as the Author of the universe^ 
holding him responsible for the cups he drinks. 
Sometimes^ as he looks one ^vay, then the other, he is 
amazed. Sometimes, he wonders what he is! 

(3) A Supernatural Revelation is necessary to 
enable man to solve a problem he could never solve 
correctly without it. — The object of his earthly ex- 
istence^ his condition and surroundings^ the mystery 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 135 

of the providence he is under here^ the grand end ot 
all things. These are matters of the deepest interest 
to him^ but Nature is unable to teach him. 

(4) A Supernatural Revelation is necessary to 
make known to man the extent of his duration in the 
future. That he is to live in the future he is satisfied 
from the teachings of Reason; but, how long and un- 
der what circumstances, he cannot know except by 
the aid of a Supernatural Revelation. 

(5) A Supernatural Revelation is necessary to in- 
form man of the character and extent of the suffering 
to which he is liable in a future state of existence, 
and the means, if there be any, of his escape. Reason 
teaches him that he is liable to suffering in the future; 
but gives him no information as to the character and 
extent of that suffering. Here he has, at times, a 
bare foreshadowing of what he is liable to in the 
future, but nothing more. He, sometimes, sees the 
clouds gathering, and hears the mutterings of wrath, 
through his conscience, but he knows not the nature 
and extent of the coming storm. He wants light. 
He needs light. 

(6) Man needs a Supernatural Revelation to teach 
him how, and where, and by whom his final destiny is 



136 A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 

to be determined; also upon what it is to hinge. These 
are matters that wring his soul. He needs more light. 

(7) A Supernatural Revelation is further necessary 
to instruct man as to his chief end; and to inform him 
of the privileges and blessings^ if there be any, to 
which he is heir. 

II. What does Reason indicate respecting the giv- 
ing, the contents, etc., of this needed Revelation? 

1. That such a Revelation is possible on the part 
of God and on the part of man; that is, God may 
give it and man may receive it. In other words, a 
Supernatural Revelation is not impossible in the 
nature of things. The fact that God is infinite and 
man finite creates no insuperable difficulty. It 
creates no difficulty at all. In fact, these are the con- 
ditions necessary to the giving of such a Revelation. 
Nature presents no bar to the communion between God 
and man. The infinite may manifest itself to the finite 
in a thousand ways. It is done in Nature. It may be 
done in a Supernatural Revelation also. Reason does 
not say that such a revelation shall be given. No. 
But that it may be given. Reason recognizes the 
sovereignty of God in this as in everything else. 

2. Reason does not say how this Revelation shall be 



A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NEEDED. 137 

given, if given at all, except that it must be in such a 
way as to meet the end designed. Any suggestion 
here, more than this, would be presumptuous. 

3. Keason does say that the evidences of its being a 
revelation from God shall, if it is given, be sufficient, 
and such as are not unreasonable. Reason allows that 
there may be mysteries, incomprehensible to man, con- 
nected with such a revelation if it is given. These are 
to be expected. 

4. Reason does not intimate what shall be the con- 
ditions of the proffered relief in this Revelation, if 
given — whether repentance, or faith, or obedience, or 
all — whether by substitution or in some other way — 
only they must not be impossible to God or man. 
Reason recognizes man as the offender and God as 
the offended, and says God alone has the right to dic- 
tate the terms of reconciliation. Man has no rights 
here except, in case terms are offered, to say that they 
shall not be impracticable. 

These, we believe, are some of the things, indicated 
by a sound Reason, with respect to the Supernatural 
Revelation needed by man ; whether that reason be ex- 
ercised in the light of what it deems such a revelation, or 
antecedently to any knowledge of any such revelation. 



CHAPTER IX. 

ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 

Has God given to man a Supernatural Revelation ? 
This is the great question. In answer we say : We 
have a book called the Bible which claims to be a 
supernatural revelation from God to man. It is re- 
ceived by millions of the human family as such ; and 
thousands of these millions are among the best schol- 
ars and best people in the world. They have inves- 
tigated the evidence by which its claims are to be 
tested, and have satisfied themselves that it is of di- 
vine origin. But their views are not to be forced on 
anybody. We may examine for ourselves, and we 
are bound to receive it as the word of God unless 
we can, beyond a reasonable doubt, refute its claims. 
As long as there is any evidence, which is not over- 
balanced by greater evidence on the other side, that 
it is the word of God, its claims rest upon us. Here 
let us repeat what has often been noted : The Bible 
challenges the most searching scrutiny, and invites 
the most careful investigation of the evidence by 
which its claims are to be tested. Many have over- 



OKIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 139 

looked this^ and have iusinuated that the Bible repre- 
sents it as presumptuous in man to question its claims 
to a divine origin. This is a great mistake. God 
has given man reason, which is itself a revelation ; and 
He expects man to bring everything into its light be- 
fore accepting or rejecting; that what is done may be 
done intelligently. Here there is a difficulty in the 
minds of many^ and the question is asked^ '' How 
are the masses^ who are incompetent to investigate all 
the evidence by which the claims of the Bible on this 
matter are to be tested^ to certify themselves as to 
the origin of this book ? '^ This is an important ques- 
tion, and must be answered candidly. Before answer- 
ing this question, however, we should say : Tt is a 
blessed thing, and shows the wisdom and goodness of 
God, that all the learning and skill necessary to the 
thorough investigation of all the evidence by which 
the claims of the Bible, on this point, may be tested, 
are not absolutely necessary to all. There are shorter 
and easier roads to the conclusion, along which every 
one, in the possession of Reason, may travel with even 
greater certainty than he who, neglecting the shorter, 
confines himself to investigations along the longer 
route. Experience is the greatest school here, as well 



140 OEIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 

as the surest test. But what is the answer to the 
question ? The masses may test the claims of the 
Bible in three ways ; or, rather the divine origin of 
the Bible may be certified to the masses in three ways : 

1. By the testimony of others. Some are disposed 
to repudiate this sort of evidence as insufficient; but 
we know this source of information cannot be repudi- 
ated. If so, then the bands of society are broken ; 
history is a lie ; science is useful to a few only, and 
these are not allowed to reap the benefits of the labors 
of their predecessors. 

2. The Bible proves its divine origin to every un- 
prejudiced man, learned or unlearned, by commend- 
ing itself to his conscience. Every man, who will 
listen to it, knows that what the Bible commands is 
right. Its precepts are pure ; its promises are encour- 
aging to the sin-stricken soul. Its warnings are sal- 
utary; its invitations are soul-inspiring. We all 
know if we will live by it we will be better than if 
we live against it. Thus it commends itself to us. 

3. Every man may prove the divine origin of the 
Bible by putting into practice what is taught therein. 
This was asserted by Jesus Christ in these words : 
^' If any man will do his will he shall know of the 



ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 141 

doctrine, whether it be of God/^ John 7:17. This is 
a practical test. David says : ^^ O taste and see that 
the Lord is good.^^ Psalm 34 : 8. I should be a great 
fool were I to condemn an article of food, as sour, of 
which I had never tasted, and had refused to taste, 
though thousands of my fellow-men, who had tasted 
it, declared it sweet. But thousands condemn the 
Bible, and its Author, and its religion, though they 
have never tested the claims of either by the most 
crucial test in the reach of any of us. All other evi- 
dence is good in its place, but this is the practical test 
at last, and is commended by enlightened Reason and 
infinite Wisdom. Let no one say this is accepting the 
doctrine in order to prove it. This is not it. It is 
simply the scientific common-sense test. The teaching 
is this: Experience will prove the matter to be good 
and produce the conviction that the doctrine is divine 
because it is so good. Thus it is that those who prac- 
tice most are most fully persuaded of the divine ori- 
gin of the Bible. The life acting upon the faith and 
the faith upon the life, the soul is convinced by a 
practical test. Any man ought to be willing to try this 
in a matter of so much importance, unless he prefers to 
be a fool instead of a wise man. If a man^s body is 



142 ORIGIK OF THE BIBLE. 

diseased and his life in danger he is willing to try any- 
thing. But in matters of spiritual interests^ or concerns 
of the soul^ it is^ practically, very different. Why is this f 

But let us look into this book called the Bible, and 
see if its claims to a divine origin may be sustained. It 
is composed of two parts denominated the Old Testa- 
ment and the New Testament. These are made up of 
different books, said to have been written by different 
authors, at different times in the past, under God^s 
direction, or under his special influence denominated 
Inspiration. Then, before entering upon the direct 
proof of the divine origin of the Scriptures, let us no- 
tice some things with respect to the Agreement, Genu- 
ineness, Authenticity, and Inspiration of these books. 
This will prepare the way for the direct proof of their 
divine origin. The church claims : 

1. Substantial Agreement. — A great deal has 
been said and written by opposers of the Bible on dis- 
crepancies in the books which compose it. It has 
been claimed that one writer antagonizes another, and 
that some of the authors are not in harmony with 
themselves. Strauss and others have tried to make 
great capital of this in the past, and the skeptics 
of the present day continue to propagate it. Let all 



ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 143 

who feel disturbed on this point read "Home's Intro- 
duction/^ Ivol. I., pp. 399-422, where all these parts 
and passages in which these alleged discrepancies are 
said to be found, are considered, and the supposed dis- 
crepancies, in doctrine, removed. We shall have 
more to say on these farther on. It is sufficient, at 
present, for us to show that the books of which the 
Bible is composed perfectly agree on certain great 
fundamental doctrines: such as, the fallen, sinful con- 
dition of man — his responsibility to God — his helpless- 
ness — his liability to punishment on account of his 
sins — his need of salvation from sin and death — his fu- 
ture life in a state either of happiness or misery — the 
provision God has made for his redemption by the 
sacrifice of Christ — the necessity of faith and obedience 
— the purity of the law — the hope of the gospel — the 
work of the Spirit — the origin, work, and final glory 
of the church, etc. — all of which are clearly taught in so 
many words, or plainly implied in nearly all the books 
in the Bible. These subjects are the burden of many of 
these books, while none, not even the historical books, 
are without their references to these great themes; 
and all agree, when properly interpreted, upon these 
and other great fundamentals in Christian doctrine. 



144 ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 

NoWj these books^ from their very unity of purpose 
and doctrine^ have been^ as they claim^ written in 
different ages of the world^ by different persons actu- 
ated by the same Spirit ; or, they have been forged by 
some person, or persons colluded together, with the 
intention of deceiving their fellow-men. Can any one 
hesitate between these alternatives? Could a set of 
impostors get up the Bible? This would be a greater 
miracle than any recorded in that book! There could 
have been no collusion between the writers of these 
books, at least many of them, because history proves, 
beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were written 
in many different centuries of the past, and by many 
different persons. 

2. Genuineness. — This has reference to author- 
ship. A genuine writing is one written by the per- 
son whose name it bears. Thus the first five books 
of the Bible are said to have been written by Moses. 
If it could be proved that these books were not writ- 
ten by Moses they would not be genuine, but might 
be authentic, nevertheless, in the matter they contain ; 
that is, they might contain the truth as narratives. 

There has been some dispute about the authors of 
some of the books in the Bible — some contending for 



ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 145 

one, some for another — and a few of these questions 
are still unsettled, even in the church ; but they are 
of such a character as not to affect the more important 
question of the origin of these books and their right 
to canonicity. In fact, there is no difficulty in trac- 
ing most of these books to their proper authors. 
The manner of doing this is very much the same as 
that of determining who is the author of any profane 
work given to the world ages ago. Of course this is 
the task of the learned critic, in a great measure, es- 
pecially, when there is any dispute. However, no 
more than a little careful reading of Biblical history, 
with some collaterals, is necessary to satisfy the mind 
of any one as to the real authors of nearly all these 
books ; and as to the time in which they were written. 
3. Authenticity. — This is a more important mat- 
ter. The question is: Do these books contain correct 
statements of facts ? That is, are they reliable in the 
matters of which they speak? Are they correct his- 
tories? If it could be shown that they are false in 
their account of events, of places, times, and persons, 
then would their claims be refuted. On the other 
hand, if it can be shown that they relate the truth 
w^ith respect to these, the presumption is in their favor 

10 



146 ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 

as to their claim of a divine origiu. We do not refer 
here to any of the miraculous events recorded, but to 
ordinary historic events. We simply mean if the Bible 
is a correct original history on all matters of ordinary 
occurrence — on places, persons, and times — the pre- 
sumption, so far at least, is that it may be all that it 
claims. Now let any one compare the Bible as a history 
Avith other authentic histories on the countries of the 
East, for instance, of which it speaks ; on cities, on cli- 
mates, on customs, and see if it can be impeached. It is 
a notorious fact that it is corroborated by other authen- 
tic history as well as by travelers who have investi- 
gated its claims on the ground where its scenes are 
laid. Let any one study the Bible on Egypt, on 
Babylon, on Jerusalem, and on such persons as David, 
Herod, and others, and see if it is not found to be a 
correct history. 

Now, if it is faithful in all these, is it not probable 
that it is faithful in all others? That its writers 
were honest in their narratives ? That they did not 
intend to deceive ? For instance : If Moses, in the 
first five books of the Bible, gives us correct history as 
to all ordinary historic matters, is it not probable that 
he was honest in his belief that the miracles he re- 



ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 147 

corded as happening in Egypt, were performed? Is 
it not probable that he was just as honest in his opin- 
ion that the Red Sea divided, and that the children of 
Israel were thereby saved from slaughter by Pharaoh, 
as in any other opinion he ever uttered ? This is the 
way we judge other men. . If we know a man to be 
faithful in many things, have never known him to be 
unfaithful in any, do we not presume that he will be 
faithful in other matters, especially if we can see no 
inducement to tempt him aside ? We know this is 
true and right ; and know, also, that this is a princi- 
ple that, in justice, should be applied to all the writers 
of the Scriptures. It would be different if a man had 
deceived us. So far as we can test the matter by any 
and all faithful witnesses, the writings of Moses, in 
the first five books of the Bible, are perfectly authen- 
tic. This is true of the other writers of Scripture. 
Men have often announced that they had discovered 
that various parts of the Bible were not authentic, but 
a little investigation has always exposed the presump- 
tion. We read of the ^^ Mistakes of Moses/^ but they 
have never been proved. 

4. Inspiration. — The authors of the different 
books of the Bible claim to have been inspired of 



148 ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 

God to write them. Inspiration means, literally, a 
breathing in ; but in Scripture it means a special di- 
vine influence under which an author wrote or spoke, 
and by which he was kept from error, and caused to 
write or speak the words God willed him to write or 
speak. What the church contends for in this matter 
is that the writers of the books of the Bible were su- 
pernaturally influenced by the Holy Spirit to write 
them; and that the original autograph copies were 
essentially correct and according to the will of God. 
The church allows that in all the Translations slight 
errors may have crept in, but that these are of such a 
character as not to affect any fundamentals. Here we 
may say, considering human frailty, and the absence of 
a supernatural influence to guide the transcribers and 
translators, the great wonder is that there are not more 
errors in our versions of the Bible. 

^^But why has not God kept the transcribers and 
translators of the Bible so perfectly under his influence 
as to prevent any discrepancy, even the least ?^^ We 
answer, first, God is under no obligation to do this. 
He gave to the Church a perfect revelation of his 
will and it was her duty to preserve it in its perfec- 
tion. Great care has been exercised in transcribing 



OEIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 149 

unci translatiug, by the church, to prevent discrepan- 
cies, but such is the character of the work, and such 
is the weakness of man that slight mistakes have been 
made, no doubt, but God is not responsible for these. 
Second, the mistakes in our versions, arising from 
transcribing and translating, show the importance of a 
supernatural guidance and supervision in the giving of 
the Scriptures at first, and serve in part, at least, to re- 
move the objection, raised by some, to inspiration. 

Remember, we do not allow that there were any 
discrepancies in the original autograph copies of the 
sacred writings as they came from the hands of the in- 
spired penmen. ^^And even of these,^^ saysDr. A. A. 
Hodge, ^^she (the church) has not asserted infinite 
knowledge, but only absolute infallibility in stating 
the matters designed to be asserted. A ^discrepancy,' 
therefore, in the sense in which the new critics affirm 
and the church denies its existence, is a form of state- 
ment existing in the original text of the Hebrew and 
Greek Scriptures evidently designed to assert as true 
that which is in plain irreconcilable contradiction to 
other statements existing in some other portions of the 
same original text of scripture, or to some other cer- 
tainly ascertained element of human knowledge. A 



150 ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.' 

discrepancy^ fulfilling in any particular this definition 
must be proved to exist^ or the churches doctrine of 
plenary verbal inspiration remains unaffected/^ — ^^Out-- 
lines of Theology/^ p. 75. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

Is the Bible a divinely inspired book? This is the 
great question. It claims to be. Paul says: ^^All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. ^^ 2 Timothy 
3:16. If the Bible is inspired of God^ then it is a 
supernatural Revelation from God to man. But men 
dispute this^ some men. It is for the improvement of 
these we offer the arguments of this chapter. We also 
desire, if we may, to remove the honest doubts of any 
who have such doubts. Last, but not least, we want, 
by the help of God, to strengthen the faith of the 
believer who is often assailed with skeptical objec- 
tions to the Scripture. 

Inspiration is a supernatural influence. Then to 
prove inspiration we must have supernatural evidence. 
In other words, the proof of the supernatural is the 
supernatural. We have three kinds of supernatural 
evidence, or three supernatural witnesses, to prove the 
divine inspiration of the Scriptures. We will present 
them in their order. 

I. Miracles — supernatural works. A Miracle is a 



152 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

supernatural work, or event, performed, or brought 
about, by the immediate power of God; or by that 
power exercised, mediately, by another whom God 
has commissioned to work miracles. That such works 
are claimed in the Bible no one doubts. That works 
occurred, at the hands of Prophets and Apostles, in the 
different ages when the Bible was being first propa- 
gated, thought, by those who witnessed them, to be 
miraculous no one can doubt without condemning, as 
false, the very best authenticated history, and de- 
nouncing the Bible writers as dishonest. For instance, 
no one can doubt the resurrection of the Lord Jesus 
Christ as a fact, thought to have occurred, unless he 
is prepared to impeach the history and the writer of it. 
In other words, if we are not determined to deny the 
history of all past occurrences, recited by any and all, 
we must give the Bible-writers the credit of being 
honest in their conviction that miracles were wrought 
by different parties who claimed to be sent of God to 
do what they did. 

Now, the question is: Were these really superna- 
tural works? Were they genuine miracles? This is 
the question. Men try to impeach this witness. They 
have many objections to evidence from this source. 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 153 

But this is one of our three witnesses to the divine 
inspiration of the Bible, and^ if it can be done honestly, 
the witness must be sustained; though we are perfectly 
Avilling for all just rules of court to be applied. We 
have no fears if justice is done. We write thus be- 
cause we know there is much prejudice against this 
witness. Let prejudice be laid aside and we have no 
fears. 

Then, these works, reported in the Bible as mirac- 
ulous, were miracles or they were tricks. If they 
were all tricks, or sleight-of-hand performances, then 
were their authors tricksters. If their authors were 
tricksters, then were they impostors. If they were 
impostors, then the Bible is false. On the other hand, 
if these works were miracles, and not mere tricks, 
their authors were honest and not impostors. If their 
authors were honest and did work miracles, then they 
must have been sent of God; for no man can do such 
works without God\s assistance. Which will we ac- 
cept ? What does Reason say ? Is it possible that 
the prophets and apostles, yea, Christ himself, could 
have been mere tricksters while promoting the pure 
morality which characterizes all their teachings ? Cer- 
tainly God would not lend his power to be used to 



154 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

prove a lie^ and jet, this was the case unless the Bible 
be divine, or unless these works were mere tricks. If 
they were mere tricks their authors were bad men. 
If they were miracles their authors were good men 
sent of God, or bad men using God's power to es- 
tablish a falsehood, which is impossible. Then we 
come back to the same conclusion, either these works 
were mere tricks and their authors tricksters, or they 
were real miracles and their authors sent of God. 
Which will we believe? Before we decide against 
miracles let us observe the following: 

1. We must believe a miracle possible unless we be 
Atheists. If a man believes there is no God the mat- 
ter is at an end with him. But we do not believe 
there are many real speculative Atheists in the world. 
The fool may desire that there be no God, but very 
few actually become such great fools as to believe 
there is none. The thought of God's existence, and 
his presence in nature, are too immanent to leave man 
in doubt on this subject. Then, if we believe God 
exists we must believe he is capable of working mir- 
acles; for the belief of the one implies the belief of 
the other ; hence the belief in the possibility of mira- 
cles is coextensive with the belief in the existence of 



BIBLE DIVINE — OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 155 

God. Some say it is superstitious to believe in mira- 
cles; then it is superstitious to believe in the existence 
of God. If a man believes that miracles are impos- 
sible he must be an atheist. To believe that miracles 
are improbable is a different thing. A man may, we 
think, believe in the existence of God, and yet believe 
that no real miracle has ever been wrought. Just as 
a man may believe in the existence of God, but, at the 
same time, not believe in the divine origin of the 
Bible. 

2. Miracles were necessary, in giving the Bible, to 
commend it to man as a divine book, and to enforce 
its claims upon the minds and consciences of men. 
The very revelation itself must be supernaturally 
communicated, and it seems to be natural to expect 
that it should be sustained, in its claims, by miracles. 
On this subject, the question, " What sign showest 
thou?^^ is not without a response in the human heart. 
The author of '' The Philosophy of the Plan of Salva- 
tion^^ says : '' Man cannot^ in the present constitution 
of his mindy believe that religion has a divine origin, 
unless it be accompanied with miracles. The necessary 
inference of the mind is, that if an infinite Being acts, 
his acts will be superhuman in character; because the 



156 BIBLE DIVINE^ — OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

effect, reason dictates, will be characterized by the 
nature of the cause. ^^ (P. 59.) JSTow, as God is far 
above us, in every respect, we naturally expect his 
acts to be above our acts, even as we expect the acts 
of a philosopher to be above the acts of a child. Even 
more so. Because the diflFerence between God and 
the wisest philosopher is infinitely greater than the 
difference between the greatest philosopher and the 
merest child. Miracles, then, are to be expected in a 
supernatural Revelation. Not only so, but they are 
a necessary concomitant. 

Even with all its miracles and other evidences of 
inspiration, it is hard enough to enforce its claims 
upon man and get him to give heed to it ; and if all 
the supernatural elements were disjoined, or rather if 
they had not accompanied it, he would utterly ignore 
it. Infidels do not reject the Bible because of its 
miracles, but because, as they say, there is no evidence 
of the supernatural about it. They say that what is 
claimed for miracles are not miracles; that the Bible is 
not from God because there is no evidence that God is 
in it, showing their belief in the necessity of miracles to 
establish the claim of a divine origin. Miracles then 
were necessary to sustain the claim of inspiration. 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWEBED. 157 

Now, that we may realize the full force of the point 
claimed under this head, let us ask how could God, 
without some sort of violence done to the wills of his 
creatures, have gained the consent of men, even when 
the Bible was being made up, or its matter being given 
to the world, how could he have reached them with its 
truth, if he had wrought no miracle in proof of the 
divine mission of those he sent out to publish his will? 
To illustrate: Take the Israelites in bondage in Egypt. 
These people had been there for several hundred 
vears, and had served under taskmasters and been 
persecuted until one would think there would have 
been no difficulty in persuading them away. But 
miracles on the part of God^s servant, Moses, w^ere 
necessary to persuade them that he was sent of God. 
Even after he had wrought some of the most wonder- 
ful miracles recorded in the Bible, in proof of his di- 
vine mission, they continued to doubt him and he 
could only hold them by a continued exercise of his 
gift of miracles. 

'^ But,^^ says the objector, ^^ these were a barbarous, 
degraded people and needed what seemed to be miracles 
to move them. There were really no supernatural 
works performed by Moses and Aaron, but only what. 



158 BIBLE DIVINE — OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

to those ignorant people, seemed to be such/^ In 
answer, we say : First^ The same would have been nec- 
essary had they been so many of the most enlightened 
people of this or any other age. If some Jew, in this 
day, were to rise up and profess to be sent of God to 
gather together all the Jews in the world and bring 
them into Palestine, they would, doubtless, require of 
him, at once, to show a miraculous sign. They would 
expect this in evidence of his divine commission, and 
it would be right. They would not follow him with- 
out this proof. Nor could they ask or expect any 
other evidence. Miracles are Heaven^s seal to the 
man^s commission. 

Second, The miracles wrought by Moses were as 
necessary for the influence they would have upon the 
Egyptians, especially Pharaoh and his nobles, as for 
the influence they were to exert upon the Israelites ; 
even more. The greatest difiiculty, after all, perhaps, 
in moving the Israelites, or getting their consent to 
move, was their fear of the Egyptians. They needed 
miracles to prove to them that God was on their side, 
and though they, of themselves, were unable to cope 
with the enemy, God would fight for them and bring 
them out against all odds. The Egyptians needed 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 159 

proof of God's presence with the Israelites and his 
determination to release them. Also that He was, as 
opposed to all their gods, able to accomplish this work. 
Hence, Moses was sent to Pharaoh, and all his mir- 
acles were such as tended, most surely, to overcome 
the minds of the Egyptians. 

Third, God was laying the foundation for a super- 
natural Revelation and miracles were necessary to en- 
gage the minds of the people in such a way as there 
should be little room for them to doubt that the mat- 
ter was from God. Hence, the numerous miracles in 
Egypt, along the line of their march, and at Mt. Sinai, 
where the Law was given amidst scenes of grandeur 
calculated to impress the most indifferent heart. So 
all the miracles in the Bible, in both Testaments, can 
be shown to be of great importance, and necessary to 
effect the end in view. 

Take the famous miracle of Joshua in stopping the 
progress of the sun on one occasion, and the miracu- 
lous preservation of Jonah in the belly of the Sea- 
monster, at both of which infidels are wont to spit 
their venom and point their ridicule; and study them 
in their relation to God's great scheme of Redemption 
and see if they do not present evidences of his great 



160 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

Avisdom and benevolence too. Modern science has 
been said to refute both of these miracles. We believe 
in science and here pledge ourselves to indorse all its 
facts, but we have no fears^ whatever^ of its ever con- 
tradicting Scripture properly interpreted. We do not 
believe it refutes these miracles. We have examined 
and find no evidence that it refutes them. Why should 
God not stop the sun if he desired to do so? He made 
it. It moves. It is possible^ we think, to show that 
Joshua gave the right command even on scientific 
ground. Certainly God could manage Jonah^s case, 
as he made the man and the Sea-monster too. This 
miracle was related to another, more important, of 
which we will speak. 

The resurrection of Christ. This is a historic fact 
which we can never gainsay unless we are prepared to 
give the lie to the very best authenticated history. 
We are aware that many do this, and we pity them, 
because we know it is prejudice, not reason; but our 
faith is not shaken because they are blinded. We be- 
lieve that Christ rose from the dead and believe it on 
good evidence. I guess that a man has a right to do 
this in the presence of modern science which has never 
yet condemned the doctrine of the resurrection. If 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 161 

any one will examine this miracle in its relation to the 
Bible-scheme of Redemption he will see that it was 
wise^ and necessary for the thorough establishment of 
Christianity. 

The objection^ often urged, that the claim of mira- 
cles represents God as reduced to great straits in 
order to accomplish his purposes, amounts to nothing. 
God generally works through means or second causes; 
but He is not obliged to do so. He sometimes sees 
fit to work by miracles. He could have fixed every 
Egyptian to the ground as so many statues and marched 
his people out of their land, but he saw proper to bring 
them out differently. God never wrought a miracle 
for the amusement or astonishment, simply, of any 
people. He is no vain boaster. All the miracles of 
the Bible were of the most solemn, instructive, and 
benevolent character possible to conceive. Never, in 
any instance mentioned in the Scriptures, when a mir- 
acle was wrought, was he actuated by any spirit other 
than that which was burdened with the infinite impor- 
tance of the end in view. 

We may object to the Supernatural, but one thing 

is sure, objections will never disprove the existence of 

miracles as claimed in the Bible. It is easy to raise 
11 



162 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

objections. Infidels spend their time at it. There 
are four leading objections usually urged against the 
existence of the supernatural. Let us notice these and 
see their folly. 

The Pantheist says: ^^ Miracles are contrary to the 
idea of God. ^^ We answer: yes^ of course they are to 
the god of Pantheism, but not to the God of the Bible. 
We reject, on good grounds, the philosophy of the 
Pantheist ; and, hence, his god. Spinoza^s god and the 
God of the Bible are very different in many things. 

The Rationalist says : ^^ Reason is the measure of the 
possible, and, hence, as Reason cannot measure the 
miraculous, miracles are impossible. ^^ This raises 
Reason to the dignity and position of a god, and, then 
leaves the objection to annihilate him, while the ob- 
jector flees for dear life! This school was led by Dr. 
Paulus. 

The Empiric says: ^^ Miracles are contrary to expe- 
rience, and the uniformity of nature. ^^ This objection 
begs the question. Of course miracles are contrary to 
the uniformity of nature. It is just this which makes 
a miracle possible. If they were not contrary to ex- 
perience and the uniformity of nature we would not, 
we could not call them miracles. This is the very 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 163 

point in dispute. Hence to say they are impossible 
or improbable because they are contrary to the uni- 
formity of nature is to beg the question. The King 
of Siam refused to believe in the freezing of water 
because he had never seen any ice. His objection was 
based on the same ground^ very much^ as the one pre- 
sented here against miracles. But this objection would 
wipe out the past almost completely, and confine every 
man^s knowledge to the sphere of his own observations. 
The uniformity of nature is a blessed things but it is 
also a blessed thing that the power of God is over and 
above nature. How unreasonable it is to suppose 
there is a God who made and governs the world^ but 
who is, notwithstanding^ unable to work a miracle. 
The truth is^ these opposers of miracles are, generally, 
atheists. What a pity that the subtle Hume who 
made so much of this objection could not see its weak- 
ness. But the aberrations of a great mind are all the 
worse for that. When a big man hits the ground, in 
a fall, he hits it all the harder for several reasons. 

The Materialist says: ^^ Nothing is real apart from 
the operations of Natural law ; therefore miracles are 
impossible. ^^ This is thorough-going Atheism — Tyn- 
"dall and others. The Bible says the Atheist is a 



164 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

fool. Of course we cannot argue with a man who 
denies the existence of the power necessary to work a 
miracle. But we may say this : on the ground of the 
objection, the objection is the only ground of its own 
existence ; since, as we suppose, it is the result of the 
operations of natural law. 

Here one says: ^^We believe in the possibility of 
miracles, also that they are necessary to prove divine 
inspiration, but we want proof of the miracles. We 
want proof that the Prophets and Apostles and Christ 
wrought miracles.'^ We reply, we have it — unanswer- 
able proof. The Bible, so far as we can determine,, 
and the evidence is such as to leave no doubt, is au- 
thentic history ; the Prophets and Apostles were hon- 
est men and faithful witnesses ; and, in the one, we 
have the miracles recorded, as facts, by the others we 
have the testimony of their occurrence. Now, if any 
man doubts the truth of the record, or the faithfulness 
of the witnesses, it is his duty to prove them false. 
The burden of proof is on him. Here, the skeptic, 
knowing that he cannot impeach the w^itnesses, or prove 
the record false, falls back on the old ground of setting 
his opinion against all the combined testimony, in 
favor of the divine origin of the Bible, and says: ^Vl 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 165 

<Jo not believe it^ it is unreasonable/^ Here he takes 
his seat with the scorner, and the end is generally a 
bitter one ! But let us call our second witness. 

II. The Prophecies, and their fulfillment, prove 
the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The evidence, 
from this source, of God^s presence in the Scriptures, 
ought to convince the most skeptical. Of this sub- 
ject, however, infidels are generally very shy. They 
know that this is unfavorable ground for them to 
pitch a battle upon. They know that in trying to 
rebut this evidence they must give the lie to the very 
best authenticated history, both scared and profane; 
■consequently they have as little to do with the sub- 
ject as possible. They generally excuse themselves by 
saying: ^^The prophecies were written after the events 
they are said to predict ;^^ or they deny the ref- 
erence of a particular prophecy to the event or person 
to which the church claims its reference. 

We do not expect to say much on this subject; so 
much has already been written. A writer who in- 
vestigated this subject thoroughly says: ^^ Of the 
-antiquity of the Scriptures there is the amplest proof. 
The books of the Old Testament were not, like other 
writings, detached and unconnected efforts of genius 



166 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

and research^ or mere subjects of amusement or in- 
struction. They were essential to the constitution of the 
Jewish state ; the possession of them was a great cause of 
the peculiarities of that people; and they contain their 
moral and their civil law^ and their history^ as well as 
the prophecies^ of which they were the records and the 
guardians. They were received by the Jews as of di- 
vine authority; and. as such they were published and 
preserved. They were proved to be ancient eighteen 
hundred years ago. And in express reference to the 
prophecies concerning the Messiah, contained in them, 
they were denominated by Tacitus, the ancient writ- 
ings of the priests. Instead of being secluded from ob- 
servation, they were translated into Greek above two 
hundred and fifty years before the Christian era ; and 
they were read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. 

^'The most ancient part of them was received as di- 
vinely inspired, and was preserved in their own lan- 
guage, by the Samaritans, who were at enmity with 
the Jews. They have ever been sacredly kept unal- 
tered, in a more remarkable degree, and with more 
scrupulous care, than any other compositions what- 
ever.^^ — *^ Keith on the Prophecies,^^ p. 14. 

Now, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament have 



BIBLE DIVrNE — OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 167 

been preserved and guarded so, in a great measure, 
have the writings of the New Testament been pre- 
served and guarded; and nothing could be more cer- 
tain than that we have, in the main at least, correct 
copies of the inspired books of both Testaments. So 
far as the prophecies in them are concerned, it is 
easy to prove that the prediction was always prior to 
the event. ^^These are revealed in such a variety of 
modes and expressions that the very manner of their 
conveyance forbids the idea of artifice. If they were 
false nothing could admit of more easy detection; if 
true, nothing could have been more impossible to have 
been conceived by man.^^ — Keith. 

We leave all the prophecies of the Old Testament 
concerning Babylon, Ninevah, Petra, Idumea, Tyre, 
etc., together with those having reference to particu- 
lar persons and their work, with all those having 
reference to the captivity and return of the Jews to 
their own land, and refer the reader to Newton, Keith, 
and others, on the Prophecies, who will give them per- 
fect satisfaction on all these. We will call special atten- 
tion to the prophecies, in both Testaments, relating to 
two great matters of the deepest interest. 

1. The prophecies of the Old Testament on Christ 



168 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

and his Kingdom. We can only glance at these. Let 
the reader gather the passages in the Old Testament 
having reference to the Messiah ; and then With the 
New Testament and some good Life of Christ in hand, 
study the fulfillment of the prophecies relating to all 
the matters of his life and Kingdom. This will re- 
ward any one for his labor^ and help to settle the mat- 
ter of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The 
Spirit of prophecy is the Divine Spirit. No one but 
God can certainly foretell the future. But all along 
the line from Eden^ where Christ was first preached, 
down through the centuries to Calvary, where he was 
crucified, and on to the Mount of Ascension where he 
finally parted with his sorrowing disciples, the light 
of the Spirit is unfolding in increased radiance and 
glory. 

But we have referred to this for the purpose of 
opening the way to an easy introduction of the reader 
to other prophecies having reference to a twofold 
event, the history of which lies nearer to us. In 
these prophecies and their fulfillment, we have four 
things of particular interest to every one set forth : — 
a standing miraele that all may witness at the present, 
the divinity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of the 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 169 

Scriptures, God^s connection with and interest in the 
Christian church. These are, 

2. The prophecies in the Old Testament and the 
New Testament concerning the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem and the dispersion of the Jews. Our space will 
not allow us to say much on this very interesting 
matter; but enough, perhaps, to indicate to the reader 
our use of these prophecies in establishing the inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures ; and how he may satisfy him- 
self as to their value in supporting the Bible claim to 
a divine origin. On this subject let us read first the 
New Testament prophecies by Christ himself. They 
are recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, 
in the thirteenth chapter of Mark, and in the seven- 
teenth and twenty-first chapters of Luke. Then read 
*' Alexander's Evidences of Chrisidanity '^ on these 
prophecies ; also Josephus and Tacitus on the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. Then connect up with these the 
prophecies of the Old Testament on this subject, par- 
ticularly those by Moses: Deut. 28:49-52. Isaiah 
24: 3. Ezek. 6:5. In Micah 3:12 we have this lan- 
guage : ^' Therefore shall Zion for your sake be 
plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps.'' 

Now let any one examine the history of Jerusalem 



170 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

and the Jews^ and see how all has been fulfilled, 
Titus^ the Roman General^ tried to save the Temple^ 
but God^s word had gone forth and it must go down. 
It was completely destroyed^ and the ground on which 
it stood was dug up and leveled down until it was as 
a plowed field. The description of the siege by dif- 
ferent historians almost makes one\s blood curdle ! 
Titus says God gave him the victory. He refused to 
be crowned in honor of his victory, saying it was 
God^s anger against the Jews that achieved it. The 
Jews have been scattered among all nations, for eigh- 
teen hundred years, as a testimony of God^s wrath 
against them on account of their sins ; and every part 
of the prophecies, both by Christ and Moses, with all 
the other prophets, has been fulfilled, or is being ful- 
filled. The Jew^ are a standing miracle before the 
eyes of all nations to-day; and every man, so far as 
evidence to sustain the divine inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures is concerned, is without excuse. Thus is the 
word of the Lord perfect. 

But we have another witness to the divine inspira- 
tion of the Bible. Here we may say : If the Bible 
is not divine in its origin, then is it the falsest of all 
books, and there remains for solution the most myste- 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 171 

rious problem the human mind has ever encountered; 
this is to account for its existence with its character 
and its claims, together with the harmony in its teach- 
ings, with all that man is, and all that he knows. It 
certainly bears the marks of a divine book. 

III. The Supernatural power of the word 
UPON THE HEART AND LIFE OF MAN. This evidence is 
invincible. It may be seen and realized by all who are 
willing to be convinced of the divine inspiration of the 
Scriptures. As this is the most certain evidence, so it 
is the most immediate. We need not go to Palestine to 
witness the miracles wrought, at the hands of proph- 
ets and apostles, two thousand years ago, more or less ; 
we need not search all history for prophecies and their 
fulfillment, in order to prove the divine origin of the 
Bible. It carries with it, in its entrance into the 
heart, into the community, into the nation, the evi- 
dence of its Supernatural origin, in its transforming 
power. This is verified, 

1. By observation. Look at the nation, look at 
the community, Ipok at the individual, brought thor- 
oughly under the influence of the doctrines and prin- 
ciples of the Bible, and compare these with those 
which have not been so brought, and see the difference. 



172 BIBLE DIVI:NE OBJECTIONS ANSWEKED. 

To be more particular. Here is an individual who 
has lived an abandoned and dissolute life up to a 
certain period, when, suddenly, there is a complete 
facing about, and the life now is as holy as it was 
formerly wicked: new motives, new desires, new ends 
and aims; a new life characterizes the new man. What 
is the cause? The individual has been brought under 
the influence of the gospel and has been made to see 
life in a new light. Conscience, supported by the 
gospel, under the supernatural influence of the Spirit, 
has reached the innermost being and brought the man 
to himself. The heart has been changed, the will sub- 
dued, and the whole man made alive in Christ Jesus. 
He is a new creature. Such a change as this is never 
wrought by resolutions on the part of the individual. 
There are new resolutions, but these are not the cause 
of the change. The change is the result of the divine 
Word under the Supernatural power of the Spirit. 
Some say it is a delusion. Well, if that were really 
so, it would be a blessed one. If a delusion can 
transform a man^s life, purify the fountain of his ac- 
tion, make him a new creature, it certainly is not to 
be condemned. But we know a delusion has no such 
power. In proof: the superstitions of the world do 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 173 

not effect such changes. But the word of God does. 
As it reaches through the individual whole communi- 
ties are transformed: as it reaches through communi- 
ties whole nations are transformed : and as it reaches 
through nations the whole world shall be transformed. 
Any man whose eyes are not blinded by prejudice 
may see this. 

2. By the testimony of others. We mean by this 
the testimony of their own personal experience. These 
individuals, who have been changed by the super- 
natural power of God^s word, bear witness, personally, 
by express declaration, as well as the life, of this 
transforming power. Are they all liars f Are they 
all deceived? Impossible. As well tell me that every 
thing is a delusion; science, history, my own senses, 
everything. Here are a thousand men and women, all 
good citizens, who tell me they all had consumption, 
and all took the same remedy, and all have been cured. 
What am I to believe ? That they are all liars ? All 
deceived ? Here one says: ^^AU who profess to have 
taken the supernatural remedy are not good citizens 
and give no evidence of the supernatural power of the 
Word upon the heart and life.^^ True; but we are 
not speaking of those who make a false profession, or 



174 BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

those who profess the power of the Word^ yet belie 
their profession by a life of sin. No; these are not 
healed and anybody can see it. Also^ any one can 
see the case where the profession and the life corre- 
spond. If a man tells me that he once had Consump- 
tion but is now cured, by having taken a certain rem- 
edy, and I see the hectic flush upon his cheek, hear 
his deep cough, and know that he is expectorating, 
constantly, yellow mucus, I am satisfied he is either 
lying or deceived. But if I see a hundred intelligent 
men and women who tell me they had Consumption 
and were healed by taking a certain remedy, and it 
is corroborated by their neighbors, and the circum- 
stances, and the life, I do not think Science would 
say it was presumptuous in me to believe so as to try 
the remedy if I had consumption. I might turn away 
and say : They thought it was Consumption, but it 
was not; there is no cure for real Consumption; there 
are diiferent kinds of what is called the same disease, 
but that remedy will not cure the ^^old-fashioned Con- 
sumption.^^ This is the way many do about the gospel 
as a remedy for sin. They doubt, they object, they 
ridicule, and they sometimes blaspheme ! But this 
is all to no purpose. The disease of sin is one and 



BIBLE DIVINE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 175 

universal; the remedy is one. Thousands testify as 
to its efficacy^ and when we see the life correspond 
with the profession we have proof of the supernatural 
power of the word. 

3. By our own individual experience. If all others 
lie we can prove^ for ourselves, the divine inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures. We have the most immediate 
test. We have referred to this in chapter IX. Christ 
says: ^' If any man will do his will, he shall know of 
the doctrine, whether it be of God/^ etc. Further re- 
marks are unnecessary ou this passage. The Christian 
needs no external evidence to prove the divine origin 
of Christianity, he has the witness in himself. All 
may have the same. Miracles and prophecy are nec- 
essary, as external evidences, but the living, divine 
energy and power in the Word is the Spirit that bear- 
eth witness with our spirits, and proves, beyond all 
doubt, that the doctrine is of God. 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE BIBLE IS IN HARMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 

This is corroborative evidence of the divine inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures. The Bible claims to be true 
and from God. If it claims to be what it is not, 
then it is not true, and it is not from God ; and, 
hence, is not in harmony with all truth. But, if it is 
what it claims to be, then it must be in harmony with 
all truth, for there is perfect unity in all truth. Here 
the objector says : '' It is not in harmony with itself; 
hence cannot be in harmony with all truth. ^^ We 
reply, we have shown in chapter IX. that the Trans- 
lations we have are in substantial agreement, and 
that we have good reason to believe there were no dis- 
crepancies, even the least, in the original autograph 
copies. The slight discrepancies to be found in our 
translations do not mar the unity of the Scriptures or 
make them false. If it were allowed that they do and 
the rule universally applied, we could establish very 
little on testimony. Here is what an able writer says 
on this subject: ^^ We need not stop to consider any 
of the alleged discrepancies. Criticism has so far dis- 



BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 177 

posed of them, that they no more aiFect the credibility 
of the New Testament history than the worm-holes or 
soiled pages of an ancient manuscript affect its genu- 
ineness. Who thinks of rejecting Livy or Polybius 
as credible histories because they so widely differ in 
tracing the march of Hannibal across the Alps ? And 
are not the testimonies of witnesses received as true, 
notwithstanding their many minor and superficial dis- 
crepancies ? ^^ — Dr. Ebenezer Dodge. He is speaking 
here particularly of the New Testament; but the same 
may be said of the Old Testament also. This dis- 
poses of this subject altogether. As to the harmony 
of the Bible with all truth let us observe, 

1. It is in harmony with the teachings of Natural 
Theology. First: As to the nature of man. Both teach 
that man is a free, moral, confiding, religious, fallen, sin- 
ful, physico-spiritual being, under the condemnation of 
God and moral law. The Bible is fuller on most, or 
all, of these points, but it is in perfect harmony with 
the inductions of a sound Natural Theology. Second r 
As to the origin of the universe. They are one in 
their teachings here. Natural Theology declares all 
entities to be the offspring of one infinite First-Cause, 
which we call God. The Bible leads to this same God 

12 



178 BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 

and declares him to be the Author of all things except 
sin. Thus between the book of Nature and the book 
of Eevelation, there is perfect harmony as to the origin 
of the universe. Third^: As to man^s future. We have 
seen that one of the conclusions of a sound Natural 
Theology is that man must live in the future, and that 
he is liable to suftering after the death of his body 
unless God reveal to him a way of escape and he avail 
himself of it. This is sanctioned by the Bible which 
advances our knowledge considerably beyond the stop- 
ping point of Natural Theology. The Bible says : 
" We must live in the future ; that we may, by the 
will of God, be immortal. This is a Supernatural rev- 
elation. This, as has been said before, was something 
that reason could not reach. It could discern the fu- 
ture existence of the soul, but not its immortality. 
The Bible also reveals the nature and extent of the 
suffering to which man is liable in the future. This 
was also beyond the reach of unaided reason. 

Again, Natural Theology could offer no certain rem- 
edy for sin, provide no certain way of escape from the 
sufferings to which the soul is exposed in the future 
world, but the Bible was given for this purpose. It 
points to the antidote for sin, and reveals the way of 



BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 179 

•escape from suffering. It says : ^^ There is balm in 
Gilead and a Physician there. '^ It says : There is 
a heaven to which we may flee, if we would escape the 
plagues of hell. It provides for the restoration of the 
soul to its allegiance to God. It seeks to lead the 
wandering sinner back to his Father^s house. It offers 
a substitute for the payment of the debt which the sin- 
ner can never cancel. It shows how the lost soul may 
be justified, adopted, sanctified, and eternally saved. 
It reveals a Saviour whose love and sympathy for us, 
in our fallen, ruined condition, was so great that he sac- 
rificed himself upon Mt. Calvary in payment of the 
debt we owed, but were utterly unable to pay, even 
any part of; all of which may be appropriated by us 
through faith in this Saviour. It shows the relations 
of this Saviour to our offended Father, and bears his 
invitation to us to return upon the conditions laid 
down in the gospel. It assures us of a hearty wel- 
come if we will come aright, but denounces judgment 
of the severest kind upon us if we refuse to comply 
with his invitation and accept the provision he has 
made. It points to the resurrection and the judgment. 
It points to heaven as the future home of all who will 
trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Surety and Re- 



180 BIBLE IN HAEMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 

deemer; but to hell as the future abode of those who 
remain obstinate and refuse to be reconciled to God 
through the anointed 8aviour who is the great Media- 
tor between God and man. Thus, the Bible goes 
much farther than Natural Theology in its instruction. 
This is right and necessary for man. 

2. The Bible is in harmony^ as a history^ with all 
well authenticated profane history. This may be seen 
by any one who will compare them. We have touched 
upon this before in chapter IX., and said about all 
that is necessary on this subject. 

3. The Bible is in harmony with all well-estab- 
lished Science. To prove the contrary, if it may be 
done, is the business of the skeptic. Let him try. It 
has often been announced as done, but this has never 
been proved, nor ever will be. All seeming antago- 
nism between truth in these two departments, or 
sources of knowledge, arises from a misunderstanding 
of one or the other. They never disagree when un- 
derstood aright. What if the church has had to 
change its interpretation of the Scriptures, at diflFerent 
times in the past, in order to meet the demands of 
Science? Is it, therefore, false? Why, this is no more 
than should have been expected. Science is one of 



BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 181 

God^s great commentaries on the Bible. The diffi- 
-culty is not with the commentary or the Text^ but 
with those who attempt to expound them to us. Every 
truth of each is indorsed by every truth of the other ; 
or, at least, no truth of either is denied by any 
truth of the other. No danger is to be felt here. 
Nature is one of God^s books ; the Bible is another. 
God does not want any truth sacrificed either in 
science or the Bible. Science and the Bible were de- 
signed to walk hand in hand. They were designed 
to cast their combined light on the darkness of Super- 
stition and error, disperse their clouds, and emanci- 
pate the mind of man from their thraldom. The 
Bible was not given to teach Science, though Science 
was designed to throw light on the Bible. They were 
never designed to wage war against each other. They 
are engaged in the same great struggle with, or 
against, the powers of darkness. They occupy dif- 
ferent parts of the field, but have their weapons 
turned against the same great foe. 

Then we say : Go on, gentlemen, with your investi- 
gations in science. We glory in all the truth you 
<jan give us. The more light, the better for the Bible. 
But give us the truth, and do not be quarreling with 



182 BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL. TRUTH. 

the most distinguished and best friend you ever had. 
All this talk about the warfare between Science and 
the Bible is nonsense. They have never entertained 
a hard thought of each other. They are the closest 
friends in the world. Professing scientific men some- 
times, yea often, try to get up a row between these two 
whom God has joined together. They try to divorce 
Science from the Bible, ^^ because/^ as they say, "the 
Bible is so unscientific/^ and not a suitable companion 
for Science. But before they get the bill signed, 
Science and the Bible rush into each other's arms, in 
open court, and the whole enterprise fails. The Bible 
is very scientific as far as it goes in such matters, and 
we do not believe it possible for any man to prove 
otherwise. If we fail to understand the harmony be- 
tween Science and the Bible, it is because we need light. 
^^ At the time of the meeting of the British Associa- 
tion, in 1865, a manifesto was drawn up and signed 
by 617 scientific men, many of whom were of the 
highest eminence, in which they declare their belief 
not only in the truth and authenticity of the Holy 
Scriptures, but also in their harmony with natural 
science.^' — Dr. Kinns in ^^The Harmony of the Bible 
with Science,^^ p. 5. 



BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL TRUTH. 183 

4. The Bible is in harmony with the inductions of 
a sound philosophy in every department of knowl- 
edge. There is a true philosophy, and it is manifest 
in the light of a Supernatural Revelation. The phi- 
losopher is one of God^s agents for the promotion of 
the truths of Revelation. The difficulty is this agent 
often gets impatient^ thinks God does not understand 
the matter, and, as he holds the pen, he goes dashing 
on until he makes a great system and produces a sen- 
sation. God, in the meanwhile, looks on, but after a 
time he says to that man or his successor : " Draw 
your pen across all that; I never authorized it.^' Then 
some one else steps up, reviews the ground, and starts 
anew. Then God says: ^^ Look out there ; there are 
certain fundamentals in thought, certain settled truths 
in Science, and certain great doctrines in the Bible of 
which you must never lose sight, and from which you 
must not vary, lest you make shipwreck of the whole 
business. ^^ Soon the adventurer has put out to sea, 
and having lost sight of his head-lands, and lost his 
bearings, he drifts he knows not where. Then the 
old Tow-boat has to be sent out to bring him and his 
followers back. Thus it goes on and on because men 
will not go to the right school. This is called antag- 



184 BIBLE IN HARMONY WITH ALL TBUTH. 

onism between the Bible and philosophy^ and it is 
antagonism between '^ philosophy -so-called ^^ and the 
Bible. But is the Bible^ because it condemns false 
philosophy, to be denounced as a fraud ? Is it, on 
this account, to be declared out of harmony with 
truth? This certainly would be unscientific. 

5. The Bible is in harmony with the profoundest 
truths in man's being, and is designed to meet the 
deepest wants in his nature. There are spiritual re- 
grets and spiritual longings, in human nature, which 
are sometimes unexpressed, and often unexpressible 
till they are met by the supernatural provisions, made 
in the Bible, for the removing of the one and the grati- 
fying of the other. Then, as the poor sin-stricken, 
and sin-sick soul, having seen itself in the light of the 
word, and learned something of its privileges, leans 
upon the Omnipotent Arm, and looks up into the face 
of a loving heavenly Father, its love is poured forth ; 
and it realizes then that its deepest wants may be 
gratified in a love which is unfailing. Thus is the 
Bible in harmony with the facts of man's emotional 
nature. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE RELIGION OF THE BIBLE THE RELIGION OF THE 
TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

Philosophy. What is it ? It has been variously 
'defined. See Hamilton's Metaphysics, p. 36. We 
define it, ''the love of wisdom^^; just what the word im- 
plies in its composition. Practically, Philosophy is 
one's view, or theory, or systematized knowledge, in 
which wisdom, gathered from any or all sources, avail- 
able, is supposed to be embodied or set forth. The 
field of Philosophy is the finite, the infinite, and 
their relations to each other. By this we mean to in- 
clude, in the domain of Philosophy everything in 
the whole range of thought. Of course it is not neces- 
sary that our knowledge of all these things be per- 
fect in order that we have a Philosophy. Any theory 
of the finite, the infinite, and their necessary rela- 
tions is a Philosophy : though it may be false or it 
may be true. Hence Philosophy is the most compre- 
hensive of all the sciences, since it has to do with 
and includes all. 

Some seem to think that we can have no knowledge 



186 RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

of the infinite. That it is unknowable, even unthink- 
able. We ask^ by way of reply^ What are we doing 
with the idea? Why do we talk about it? It is non- 
sense to say that man can have 7io knowledge of the 
infinite. Space is infinite. Has man no knowledge 
of space ? He does not know space or anything else 
in its infinitude. This is impossible. But he has 
some knowledge of somewhat of the infinite. He cannot 
grasp the tvhole. No ; he cannot see the entire Pa- 
cific ocean at one view ; but he can comprehend some- 
what of the ichole as far as it is manifested to him, as 
he can see a part of the ocean ; not all. There is a 
gradation in Nature, while there is none between God 
and Nature; God being infinite and Nature finite. 
But the infinite God may and does come into Nature 
and reveal himself m part. Pantheism is superior to 
Agnosticism, though it passes the gradation of Nature 
on to God. This is its weakness. Man cannot com- 
prehend the infinite power of God, but man has some 
knowledge of power, which is a part of the infinite 
power of an infinite God. 

Agnosticism is only another miserable shift of the 
enemy to get rid of the idea of God, but this can never 
be done by any change of tactics. The idea of the in- 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 187 

finite is in the human mind and inseparable from it. 
God^s presence is too immanent. The fool may say in 
his heart: "No God,^^ but this does not banish the 
thought. Conscience can never let the sinner go from 
the presence of his Governor. Then let us observe: 
1. 3Ian must have a Philosophy, Man^ from the 
very constitution of his mind^ must inquire^ more or 
less, concerning things about him. He must inquire 
concerning his own nature and the nature of the ob- 
jective world; concerning their origin and destiny. 
He is a rational being and reason urges him to the 
consideration of things in their nature and relations. 
Reason and philosophy go together. The tendency 
to philosophize is one of the first dispositions mani- 
fested by our children. They often take us by sur- 
prise by asking us what the stars are, who made them, 
etc. This shows us the bent of the human mind. It 
must inquire and it must have an answer. The veriest 
savage in all the earth thinks on these things. The 
Scholar ponders and weighs them. Of course, many 
theories are vague and erroneous. Many have unme- 
thodical views, but every one who has reason has some 
view of these things. This view is his philosophy, 
whether it is spelled out into a system or not. The 



188 RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

opinions of men will be very different, owing to dif- 
ferent capacities, different training, etc.; but they 
must have an opinion. Self-consciousness works; the 
idea of God is in the mind, and conscience keeps it 
there; and every man, having reason, must have some 
view of these and their relations. This view consti- 
tutes his philosophy, however imperfect. In this sense 
every man is a philosopher. We know that some will 
object to this broad use of the term, but we cannot help 
that. The common-sense of mankind often abolishes 
many of the distinctions which are arrogated by a few. 
2. There is a true Philosophy, Such are the differ- 
ences, among cultivated people, on philosophy, that one 
may be tempted to believe that all philosophy is vain. 
We must be careful here. It is just this which has 
caused many to say all religion is vain. Some Chris- 
tian people cast great reproach on philosophy, as 
though all philosophy antagonized the religion of the 
Bible. This is a great mistake, and worthy of con- 
demnation. A philosophy, ^^ so-called, ^^ is to be con- 
demned. But there is a True Philosophy which does 
not antagonize the Bible, but adores it. Read the in- 
troduction to MorelPs ^^ History of Modern Philoso- 
phy,^^ in order to see the benefits of philosophy. There 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 189 

is a true philosophy, or at least a true philosophy is 
possible, because there is such a thing as truth. 
Whether the true system of philosophy has ever been 
given to the world may be a question, but that such a 
system is possible we know to be true. We say the 
true system because there can be but one. Truth 
dwells in eternal unity. Then, unless truth can be 
truth in one man^s philosophy and error in another's^ 
there can be but one true philosophy. 

Men have many different philosophies according to 
their view of the subjects of philosophy, and their reli- 
gions differ as their philosophies differ. A man^s nat- 
ural religion is always his philosophy worked out 
and manifested in the life. If his philosophy is false 
his religion will be false; for human reason always 
imposes on the infinite such conditions and limitations 
as belong to its philosophy: hence in all merely hu- 
man systems of religion the Infinite is a mere shadow. 
It becomes finite and is represented by finite symbols. 
The different philosophies thus account for the different 
religions, not in any wise drawn from the Bible ; and 
even in those based upon the Bible, as we will yet 
show, the difference is traceable to a different under- 
standing of the philosophy in the Bible. 



190 EELIGIOX OF A TEUE PHILOSOPHY. 

e3. The True Philosophy is not possible to unaided 
human reason. This may be shown from two consid- 
erations : 

First: History furnishes no account of any true 
system of philosophy evolved from, or by^ human reason 
alone. Many have been the efforts to account for the 
nature and relations, the origin and the destiny, of all 
things^ without the aid of a Supernatural Revelation^ 
but all have been failures. Take any or all^ of these sys- 
tems and apply the tests which are given in this chapter 
— tests which, we believe, will be commended by any 
unprejudiced mind — and we will see how this position 
is sustained. Of course the skeptic, especially the athe- 
ist, will reject one of these tests, but the Theist, Chris- 
tian or non-Christian, should have no difficulty in in- 
dorsing them if prejudice is laid aside. 

Second: Conscious inability of Reason. We know 
that our powers are limited. As the Duke of Argyle 
well says : " We feel ourselves beating against the 
bars on every side.^^ We cannot fathom the depths 
of things. We may know much, but there will be 
infinitely more in the unknown than the known. 
Heights to which we can never soar, depths to which 
we can never dive, and breadths to which we can 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 191 

never reach. Many of the systems of philosophy, 
projected by unaided Reason, have truth in them, some 
of them much truth ; but the errors will always be 
found to be in excess of the truth. There must be 
some truth in every system which is, in any measure, 
propagated. If the whole were false it would be detected 
at once. " Error,^^ some one has truly said, ^^can only 
be propagated by mixing it with the truth. ^^ Truth 
may be discovered by human reason, never invented. 
Now there are truths, necessary to complete the system 
of the true philosophy, which were not discoverable by 
human reason ; hence the necessity of Supernatural 
aid. Of course, unaided human reason could have 
scraps of the true Philosophy, as it could have truth, 
gathered from many sources, but it could never have 
the complete system. The system is complete only when 
the classification of all phenomena is made possible or 
is complete. This classification could never be com- 
plete without a Supernatural Revelation. Hence the 
man who rejects the Bible puts himself in a position 
where it is impossible for him to have the true system 
of true Philosophy. If a man rejects the supernatural his 
system, though true in every other respect, must be par- 
tial, must be incomplete; yea, it must be false as a system. 



192 RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

Hence Agnosticism is false as a system of philosophy,. 
Herbert Spencer presses his investigations until he 
reaches the " bars ^^ of which Argyle speaks^ over 
which he cannot climb^ then he turns back^ and wav- 
ing his hand toward the "bars,'^^ says: " All beyond 
is unknowable.^^ The mistake he makes is in not look- 
ing through the "barsJ^ God never intended that 
we should climb them, but he wanted us to look 
through them and see the Supernatural at work on 
every hand. 

The " bars ^^ have been crossed, but not by man. 
God has come over them and revealed himself on this 
side, as man never could have known him by looking 
through. Reason could catch glimpses of Divinity 
through the "bars^^ but the Bible reveals Divinity on 
this side. This enables man to have the true systern of 
True Philosophy. The Bible, by its Supernatural light, 
enables us to see the true relation between the things 
on this side of the "bars^^ and all beyond them. This 
was impossible to Reason left alone. Reason can discern 
God as the Creator of the universe, and learn much 
of his wisdom, his moral attributes, etc.; but Reason 
could tell us little of his goodness, his benevolence, 
etc. It could tell us nothing of his love and mercy. 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 193 

of his deep fatherly sympathy for us in our fallen sin- 
ful condition. The Bible does not remove the '^bars^^ 
and let the finite and the infinite flow together^ but it 
reveals the way of communion between the two and 
gives us a more perfect knowledge of both. 

4. An absolute Philosophy is not possible to man 
with the aid of Revelation. We use the word ^^ ab- 
solute ^^ in the sense of perfect, finished. As Philoso- 
phy^ at last^ is the knowledge of the finite and the in- 
finite and their relations to each other^ an Absolute 
philosophy would be an absolute, or perfect, or finished 
knowledge of these things, which is, evidently impos- 
sible to the finite mind. The finite can never compre- 
hend the infinite, though it may clearly discern it, and 
know of it, and have to do with it. An Absolute 
Philosophy is the wisdom of the Infinite, and is to be 
unfolded through all eternity without ever reaching 
the end. 

5. The marks or tests of* the True, though limited, 
Philosophy. We have said there is a true philosophy, 
and intimated that the system of it is possible to man 
under certain conditions. Now, we inquire what those 
conditions are. A careful analysis gives the follow- 
iug: 

13 



^r^4^!m^m9^m^^^^^M&^ km 

and intuiti-^dpd IPeM^^iti^^tfg^^'fgH-Wid^hfeg^Jbr^a^^ 
«^t%e8h #k4^ifeli^, '^W^K^^!^^MkeMf^#d%tpr<iper 

%\^kwiAv%^^on^l ^^'^'^^^^ ^^^^ ^>^ ^'^^-^^^ ^>^'^- t^^ '^(> v/oo>I 

Reason are found arrayed on the side of MatefeMi^filA 
#fetti^f^stii^b§'«lite %rd^^\m^pif]^mm ^ le^on 
gukf^^^f ^Kettdfed^ M^Me/^tfefehiMg^^/^f .^fe|<t^li& 

tK6ft!^%#f5f ^a:«irfepfkyM fefeb^'^llmt4rial-^w%i^^^fi^h^ 
material world is as certainly objective as her •<@M 

81 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 195 

acts, as revealed in consciousness, are subjective. 
The Soul says : '' I am conscious of my own existence, 
of thought, of reason, of the knowledge of right and 
wrong, of moral freedom, of will, of desire, of love, 
and of hate; conscious of being diiferent from all 
material entities ; and Reason affirms it. Now, if we 
ceiriiatomlytdtopG^uiotbese deliverances of Reason, on 
wh8>t ! d«p rWj^jrely ?/ ] ,: Batj xif M^terialiamB be^itrAae, .. all 
thikjis^filae^ feemi^V MaA^riiali^Mi^l>atj!adifct^ tbd ^^jtq 
kujaflityicof/itbejftoind^staadfjoou^equ^^ 
Reaaoinijffey \?^^bfe^ ifaiptof€^e^ttoiM)^AMiQd>: ifB^side)^/ 
Materafalkmi q(>H<ttad ic*8 ; t ^ 
tbdt it; Jcontiwiiata ( tbei ^^v$ \:h%\\m%i^)&^^ 
be )0^ jsaeli tbiiiig ^risi SpiS^itfd^^tbeKfcrml^ek•a^^ hoMii^aiJ^afe 
ktftb^toif^IfcaaM ateyhtjcinsoiprBnjgsscaQdranyifcnowletigo^, 
oficdiufqelYjeH,] -KDi^no^ dbe>ctiakig$i vbyb^biebi whi si^d du^rfo 
rauitd^di? t«)Iaimferel8iiiattepr^e0iisj)ious abdjaible tp^d'qr) 
veal aitsetf J to ^ (^tb^romjere mdtteo??/?} li iiDbfeiiisK iKyii^fens¥/ 
9i[FBDm)lh^«i f63!dg0itf^ keirmayoqe®, tb^iiidpOTtaiieia^; :o^ 
the study of psychology — of understanding.f}asilnMfli8h| 
as ipossi Wd' pf^rtibii pattare i and^ ]ia\Vs ,ofi ( the/ mi li^d O We 
seevall^OHitliiat^ fchefoery^isagaihstieM^tdpbysic^ is^\vrdi]fl 
Ttiehv!e!r}t febfejtbat .phiysiKfes^feayJibeosl^Uid'iedyaJidithHtJ 
xte/mayl'gaiB a fciBdi^led^e «df -miterial^thihgis),! prorvebi 



196 RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

that there is a metaphysical something within us not 
subject to physical law^ but above it. 

Second : The true Philosophy is in harmony with 
the truths of the Bible. It does not contradict any 
certain truth in the Scriptures. We have shown that 
the Bible is in harmony with all known truth; then 
a true Philosophy must be in harmony with the Bible* 
The Bible was not given expressly to teach philoso- 
phy, but it'is inevitably connected with philosophy. 
The Bible was given to teach men the way of salva- 
tion from sin and death ; but along with, and under- 
neath the main matter, there are philosophical princi- 
ples which were designed for our instruction in this 
department of knowledge, and while these are neces- 
sary concomitants of a Supernatural Revelation, no 
doubt God intended, with these, to correct our philos- 
ophy, which is a necessary substratum of religion. 
We have already shown that a true philosophy is not 
possible without a supernatural Revelation, hence the 
point here. 

" Oh,'^ says one, " there is no philosophy in the 
Bible. ^^ We reply, there is more sound philosophy in 
the first sentence of the Bible than is to be found in 
all the teachings of the schools. Here we anchor and 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 197 

defy the storms ! Let us look a little at this matter 
and see how the Bible teaches philosophy indirectly. 
But we must get beneath the surface. We must read 
the lines and between the lines. The Bible assumes 
the existence of God^ as a fact too immanent in hu- 
man reason to need proof^ and proceeds to tell us what 
he is^ and point out the relation he sustains to the 
whole universe. " In the beginning God created the 
heavens and the earth. ^^ With what majesty of ex- 
pression does this book introduce itself to the reader ! 
These cannot be empty sounds. " In the beginning^^ — 
in the depths of the, to us, unknown past, " God created 
the heavens and the earth. ^^ Here is philosophy, 
higher, deeper, and broader than any which ever came 
from the Academy or the Porch, or from any human 
source whatever ! It is as high as heaven, deep as 
hell, and extensive as the universe ! Here is the finite 
and the infinite, and their relations to each other. The 
whole in a nutshell. Not all of the finite, for, as yet, 
all had not been created. Not all of the infinite, for 
the all can never be revealed to man. Not the whole 
of the relation between the finite and the infinite, for 
the whole could not yet be; but a grand outline, the 
details of which are infinite ! Here the infinite foun- 



198 K^mJCMONOF AJTmUE PHILOSOPHY. 

tain-^headjiifrom ^i^riilch illifiBite^t^reaterta^^^^dy 
is^-itoe'S0ffle'^asoi*ej:pxp(Dbgdud'i^ 'Bfete^ tii^ 
Grcaat iWorM^Builder,iarid ditera/'tb#cWt)rlds^^ f^^lMs^Uii 
thedoetrMe^of Ganse and Effect in its^graBtd^iij^^H ^ff' 
OPass oiiiaiittle,' And God?said^N IJet tbei^ l^feiftgbtyi^ 
and ligtet ^sIsJ^ ^keBu\^n^dBemt<dtt&&in^^ 
The writer does not pause to tell us what llghtiis^/fcut^' 
only that it^ too, is a creature of God. ff6re^%-*|jhU 
losophy taught without the intentioii^ s## kp^M^^Ml^ 
this is a necessary preparation for something^'^fe^l^^ -'^fc'^i 
philosophy of the Bible is, as it were, kept in "the^ 
background. The teaching of a divine religion, which 
was designed to bring relief to perishing sinners, was 
the primary object of the giving of the Scriptures. 
But the Bible teaches philosophy without intending, 
as it were, to teach it ; hence it is never put in front 
of the main design. '^ It is the glory of God to con- 
ceal a thing.^^ Men have ever been prone to esteem 
philosophy above everything else ; therefore the phi- 
losophy of the Bible is placed behind the religion as 
her servant, that men in seeking the philosophy must 
look at the religion. ^^ But the secret of the Lord is 
with them that fear him ; with them that hope in his 



nf]I^p.)aQt,uw^erstjand .us here xu^j jpjaiipj^g^-tl^al^ tl|^ 

u^g¥lthi^,he^df I I^en build^^p fai^^sj^^terx\§ of,j^i- 
1;QS03^, aB^,iG,vfj[oi|igjS^3fij^ m^^ shdp^j^ck of 
religioD, especially the religipij^o,f,^|^^^]^i|)J^^^)yhich is 
rjejeGte^./bepaysBjrj.;! c^aunq^] b^ niBfifj to . square with 
thjei-j^ phil^s^ph^^^^j ..,.f..,j .V,, ..,a- ' 
,,.^Hi^P|: ^'JEljejTflu^^^J^^lpjSophy is in harmony with 
aJlii^r^thj^rf.Thi^ i$^^ principle of Non-contra- 

diction, The essential unity of truth is a settled 
^riiaicipl'6 in philosophy ; hence it is not necessary to 
say much here^ especially as this subject has been up 
before. We intuitively recognize the truth of the 
proposition. Thus the true philosophy is in harmony 
with the absolute wisdom of God^ though it can never 
attain unto it. These are the lines which may forever 
approach each other, but, from the very nature of 
things, can never come together as one or be coex- 
tensive. The finite reaches up to the infinite, and 



200 EELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

the infinite reaches down to the finite, and there is an 
eternal approach, but no absolute unity. This fur- 
nishes room for progress^ on the part of the finite 
mind, for all eternity. Fields of thought to be tra- 
veled through, joys to be pursued, sweets to be pos- 
sessed. But these fields can never be fully explored, 
and thus leave the soul without the pleasures of 
pursuit, or the sweets of new and more soul-filling 
possessions ! What a delightful prospect ! But it 
lies before the redeemed only. 

Religion: What is it? A subject bowing or 
worshiping, an object or being bowed unto or wor- 
shiped, and a feeling of relation between the two. 
This is a sufficient definition though, perhaps, it may 
not include all. 

1. Man must have a religion as surely as he must 
have a philosophy. It is a constitutional necessity. 
As we have seen already he is a religious being and 
must worship. He will have a religion if he has to 
devise one for himself. He can never be satisfied 
without a god. Some have tried to be, as Comte, for 
instance, but, like him, have found it impossible. 
Man is essentially religious. We need not be dis- 
turbed about the difference of view as to the basis of 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHV. 201 

the religious nature^ or the origin of the religious 
idea. It is certainly connected with the rational 
nature. Keason says : ^^There is a God, and man 
ought to worship Him.^" If he does not worship the 
true God he will worship a false god. He must 
worship. The soul must go forth after some god in 
faith^ in desire, in love^ in obedience. Even Atheism 
must give vent to the religious feeling. The Atheist 
prostrates his heart before Nature as a god! Nature 
is the god of all forms of Atheism. Comte, when 
he found man could not do without a religion, insti- 
tuted a hero-worship. This is only one form of Na- 
ture worship. Anything^ with some^ to get rid of the 
true God. We should be careful here. We may de- 
stroy ourselves and others. J. S. MilPs father rebelled 
against the providence of God^ and went the lengtli 
of denying His existence in order to ease his con- 
science! His son virtually followed in the footsteps 
of his father, and we have reason to fear that his end 
was a bitter one ! 

2. There are many religions, but there is only one 
true one. This follows from two considerations. 
First : There is but one true God who claims our 
homage and asks our love. If there is but one true 



202 I^EMGMON OF A Jl!BUE BHII^OSOEHMi 

Godiibere can/ of GO;Uirse/jibe foii^ tXEienitmie <rj9ligianU 
ABy.otJiersiiippDsition isv^nfi^ 

ai iMatkMal Reiigion whioH Is* traei^s/aiifasi^ iilgoesy ibiat 
Ht:'d0iesiai(i)#^g<D:nfepr>^n0!igii to' beilH s^^tng///i!©ligi|^nw> 
Seo0aad:iRevelaj;io«aLii^efetle^iuthis// nlMterijd Ijboateents) 
tkat]ihfreuiB.bu4;fbne;triiE a^ligicin.ijj(/^OdS'Loqd^^De/ 
faithj ioi§fiiJb^ism^y:j9LCh€ceiis ^utuoriqetaiH^) GrofiltM 
wdrshi|) ; xriie heeYepytOcgaiHift^Di^lheH :te ^hjim^eeei 
faith :fires6nted^^^ 

hope to iospice — DnelMvhxe^hoekioigiiiM-i^bu^ ©iitisti 
to sa^re-*-OBe3HjG)lyiS!|rirlt tdj enli^^teii.^-f-ane tctnthr td 
sai>6tify. All other meiigibnsrare falmi;r:iAli<QtktiT]oiQ'p^Bt 
are vaiii. Meji imay :obje(i(j-k¥tJi!ayi i<[kM-A)u t .^eas0n/ssjB^ 
there^ean hWhut'^m^ tcteBaviDgoieli)gioD7^Tr.iithlc)^^ 
preser^ teiUjii^IliIEi.e^iiDev^eii^diifta^jQiz^ -/Mk 

thecmdu9trii etalk Qkamm€i in\QBniB&isampgilrTeli@ik^>g/j 
3. The religion of the Bible is^the^viiili^(irm^xtf 'te 
true philosophy^ and the only religion that will bear its 
light. This reveals the harmony between the True 
Philosophy and the True Religion. They meet in 
the Bible which was designed to bring earth and 
heaven together. No religion can be true that is not 
supported by the True Philosophy. The two must 
go together. There is much in the religion of the 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 203 

Bible which reason cannot measure, but nothing which 
contradicts reason properly exercised. Every other 
r-eligion does contradict au enlightened reason. This 
condemns the religion 06 the Jews twhich^ ;thougbi":it: 
professes to be based upon the Bible, is partiaU- The 
True Religion is based upon the whole Bible. ; On 
both Testaments as of equal authority. Henee/edii 
the True ^Religion, ^^Merpy and truth have r^m^t^^^o- 
gether ; righteousness^ attd? i^^eacar have kissed eaoh[ 
other. ^^ -'lu leiho sdi /jira eno— -Ijriow oili 

. i4. The different syHtemfe of Religion drawn) froniiiiMiei 
Bible, -What is to be said af thesG:?^ Th^te alreTnot:: 
different systems taught iiL'tHeBible^ If there ^^were^ 
the Bible would contradict ■ itself. : ^ These differed 
systems, professedly drawii from the BibleyaiidirAoiiKi: 
estly we allow, are, nevertheless, the productions of 
men, not the Bible. Here we enter upon a theory of 
explanation which, we think, will be satisfactory. 

Since man's entrance into this world, at least since 
his fall, there have been two great systems of philoso- 
phy always antagonizing each other; and what we call 
different systems are, at last, when sifted, but one or 
the other of these — Christian Theism and Atheism. 
Between these there is no middle ground in Reason. 



204 RELIGION OF A TKUE PHILOSOPHY. 

Polytheism^ Pantheism, and Materialism are the great 
Atheistic systems of which Christian Theism is the 
opposite^ — the other pole. Here some one asks : '' Is 
there no truth between, these poles? ^^ We answer, 
yes. But that truth cannot be put into a system 
which shall oppose both poles. It belongs to the 
Theistic system. 

Now as there are two great systems of philoso- 
phy, so there are two great systems of religion in 
the world — one true, the other false — and all the dif- 
ferent systems, supposed to be drawn from the Bible, 
are reducible to one or the other of these. These are 
Grade and Wovlzs^ or, salvation by Grace alone, and 
salvation by human Merit. These have been at eter- 
nal w^ar with each other. Men have ever been prone 
to found a mixed system of these upon the Bible, not 
understanding the place oi faith and icorhs or their 
relation as explained in the Bible. This accounts for 
the different systems purporting to come from the 
Bible. 

Here the objection against the divine origin of the 
Bible, so often in the mouths of skeptics, may be an- 
swered. They say the Bible is so worded that it is 
responsible for the differences which so much tend to 



RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 205 

the confusion of men of whom it requires such preci- 
sion in faith and obedience. They say if man\s salva- 
tion depends upon his faith in and obedience to the 
teachings of the Bible, it should, and it would, if 
divine, be so plain that no man could mistake its 
meaning. We answer : As to the essentials it is so, 
as any one may see if prejudice is laid aside. Most 
of the systems, professedly drawn from the Scriptures,, 
agree as to the great essentials of salvation, and in 
this may be said to be one. As to their differences in 
what are called non-essentials, they separate and are 
false or true in proportion to their alliance with, and 
difference from, the one or the other of the two great 
systems which always antagonize each other- — Grace 
and Works, or divine Mercy and human Merit. But 
this same objection might, on the same ground, be 
urged against the divine origin of the universe. It is 
by many, and Atheism is adopted against Theism- 
This proves that there is no middle ground in reason 
between the adoption of the Bible and its religion 
and Atheism. Then, the great conflict, at last, is be- 
tween Orthodox Christianity and Atheism. 

Again, if perfect unity of opinion is to be the test 
of truth, how much of what is called science would 
go by the board ! The fact that men differ about the 



206 RELIGION OF A TRUE PHILOSOPHY. 

teachings of a book does not prove the book to be 
false, either in whole or in part. The fact is, the Bible 
is of such a character and the human mind in such a 
M^Mithat thetemi^stifoe-diiferences about it. But the 
BibJolis iMDst fdsponsibLe foif th^se diffefen^esi' ^Man^s 
paind jandeihearto aardJ oThik is tii-eic tiime) Wour<^i4tfBiiJil 
lteIdiscj9Bpiaucies:aiF.alJ jtfeei [depai-tmentg/Kirf #touf hJ^--^ 
^hei^pjia^eA^iTiteli^ctvam ofli io 

ill SjtfEh^ii^stslois ikarksidrf orthodox ©fririgtfiaMi Mt|i4> 
]^8the86 iW may] determine i the Jchai^aibtei*>v^f(i(5air ^^ 
ligidttiii 'Mmtfy'^: Itiik subjieetive in itslojiferatioits.^x^ffe 
ietz;^^:'&poB'thei heart) jlandj change? it j fmmm ii^vmbi 
mmi?^ a\'d(mk M) h^flim^essli ^Thus^ itlthmoAe^>m'iMii^> 
seimm-livi^g) ]^bm^roik-ikemoukn'/^8eeoMtl^^^ 
jjeoffi ve Jint Itsi iraanifeistatroHSiK Ku imkiife^tsl^StiMfiw 
the ^totward life^. in dts d:{ra|ls%bmin!g Ip&^k^ Wj^m< mt^^ 
mlyis andt thej wdrld) anj^'iinsdhifediifojpmit^it;^)^^^ 
knekiiTwilliiofiiQod;:' liEhus itbig^^^eliglai^ btiid^Uhe' 
sojd^f^atHe^iivm^ thibbe <ml <&@dp^ihdiitoiii:^>l^ ikiS 
aD[i%ikiio3Jshi:piiwitW.iDeit5ij 'in nohqobn edi ii997/J0(i 
-oHrirQj-wleiDe^t:^Mheoargti^ di\timiyi bl^ ito 

Bible and its>^irBli^ioiiuii WemmmSkm^he^k^ mM^ 
oiEb aSoBdviU Scieiic^cpT iDri|ei©hilc>'Sbf^t0r'i^^ 
iHithw i^mmme Withiskrltm^/oficetl^eMic^/^^iaWto 
Afe dii^ite^ig8ipmofiithef.iSctifttiJrieE. ! b-iEod od^ xd o'g 



.YT]j:'iGr^i>:i axA YTiz:AiTai;i... 

r^jltifidelity iik«4>'eeti^^ called by!. various, nata^iiK^Fiiis 
$s^'^^Dg^4(^ ^6'^ifffaieiit phaseq it >■ ImsiAsiSiamed K|5^dif+ 
fei^^tP^Jieifiods iiii^the^past iia ^erhiindjslBfhdSffe'reint 
^e^i^fe^^wbcv' ^aVeiadi^ocated i itS'/claiEnSjo eltlias'^been 
d^Q^niteated' -Atheism:; :k»i4^ n 33eiim fi r 
Fuu^^^m, MatemlistTi aiiidi Spiiifcualism;.^ '(Eheseldm 
h^^M^s of-^p^cifie phages, an^; m^ay teiSaid.Lt^oxbeitlie 
^Jy^diis of'Vwhicb' tkelt^me Ifafid^lftprbriiSke^tiGism^ 
^hifcb; f 5s ?so«m^timeb.?ujised cto djemotBiMQ ndtne tkmg-m 
k-teligiptxs 8ensei,oiij thei^etosb WhQlidtidn scrHitsmuk 
n^afe^, ^b'^ fermerrjaria^.bw^ckrmamesy Tbari®Dt^,iwhiBk 
is ^foinmoKPtld all^^0f^^t}ij^m,/iBiIiiib^M*idt Ae cw^@iFdjJ(of 
©0k}'Oi^aMisbeliel^^of;tbjaai\i6e 
(Clli&dfe tWliktii^'cal^nlufidqlitjr, wbatBV^r 'it 'ipB^ 
iidelfl'^^'M wmm refuses: to belfe\^eitb^4:h^) (Bible u« 
iTofti>God^we*cyi himianMinfidell ilihr mid ^noj;>9ijn 
i ^ i Th^re > igi : ^another form; ■ of Infidelityn of-wKTch . me 
dfe^it"^ to-speaki > It al^o isrpronidlgktedi undeu diffeori- 
^nt^ianlfe^afnd) always foqnddii .a ]?eligiouH)garlp*j nit 
prid^fesJs^ to receive tWe Bible ^as4hprword(I<i) flGod^ but^ 



208 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

iu its theory of interpretation^ denies some of the 
most fundamental doctrines thereof, and thus subverts 
the word of God. Such are those forms of nominal 
Christianity which deny the divinity of Christ; or^ 
accepting that^ claim that he will save all men^ finally, 
irrespective of faith or practice — Universalism. Those 
who deny the divinity of Christ take away the chief 
corner-stone of the whole spiritual edifice — the only 
foundation of the church — the only foundation upon 
which the sinner can bnild any hope of acceptance 
with God. They set up a system of human merit 
grounded in the idea of salvation by works. Those 
who teach the doctrine of universal salvation, by this^ 
virtually abolish all distinction between right and 
wrong; remove virtue as the ground of the right- 
eousness of the Moral Law; take away the Justice of 
God or sacrifice it to his Mercy which is the same, 
and represent God as propagating a palpable, though 
somewhat solemn, joke with the sinner when He 
threatens him with future punishment on account of 
sin. These are very subtle forms of infidelity, and 
more to be dreaded because of their covert teachings. 
An open enemy is always preferable to a secret foe — 
one out of the camp to one inside. Then let it be un- 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 209 

derstood that we denominate all that which refuses to 
accept the Bible as the word of God, or, professing to 
accept it as divine, so interpret it as to subvert it, In- 
fidelity. Its name, so far as its diflPerent phases are 
concerned, is legion. But the root is the same, the 
trunk is the same, and, though the branches may 
differ somewhat, the fruit is the same. Now let us 
contrast Christianity and Infidelity. 

I. In their ORIGIN. — Christianity had its origin 
in the profound depths of the amazing love of God 
to a fallen world. ^^For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life.'^ John 3:16. Here we have the sublime 
origin of Christianity set forth. Then in the language 
of his own word by Paul, when we have tasted this 
love, we exclaim: ^^ Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with 
all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ : 
According as he hath chosen us in him before the 
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
without blame before him in love ; having predesti- 
nated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ 
to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will : 

14 



210 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he 
hath made us accepted in the beloved/^ Ephesians 
1:3-6. What could be more beautiful and soul engag- 
ing than this? Salvation from sin and death by grace 
through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ — God loving 
a sinful world — God giving his Son to shame and 
death — God saving all who will believe ! Now let us 
see the origin of infidelity. 

Infidelity^ according to the best account we have of 
it, originated with, or was begotten by, the devil. It 
was born in the garden of Eden, and, according to its 
advocates, was about the only respectable thing that 
was born there, and has been propagated from the day 
of its birth to the present by the Devil and his emis- 
saries. It is now about six thousand years old. Its 
father was, as seems, of high origin, though at the 
time of the birth of this, his first offspring, he was 
very much reduced. He had fallen, by transgression, 
from his lofty estate, and from an angel of light be- 
come an angel of darkness, as an eternal punishment, 
in part, of his pride and disobedience. This is the 
origin of infidelity. 

Now, that we may confirm our definition and de- 
scription of infidelity, at least in many of its phases, 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 211 

as given at the opening of this chapter, let us see how it 
originated. By this we will have a fuller description of 
it, and see how the infidelity of the past corresponds 
with the infidelity of the present in its most promi- 
nent features. In the third chapter of Genesis, verses 
one to five, w^e have an account of its introduction 
into the world. ^^Now the serpent was more subtle 
than any beast of the field which the Lord God had 
made.'^ — v. 1. It is not necessary to dwell on the 
question as to what beast is here described. This is 
not important. It was the Devil in the form of some 
animal or actually possessing some animal. It is not 
a mere figure of speech or mythical representation. 
The Devil in some form in which he could approach 
Eve most successfully appeared unto her in the gar- 
den and said : ^^ Yea, hath God said ye shall not eat of 
every tree of the garden ?^^ It is highly probable, as 
several interpreters suggest, that the whole dialogue is 
not given ; that something had gone before what we 
have quoted here. The enemy had, doubtless, ques- 
tioned her as to the nature and extent of the restraint 
put upon her and Adam in this delightful home of 
theirs. If so, doubtless, Eve had given him some ac- 
count of the matter in language similar to that which 



212 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

follows this subtle question. The question bears upon 
its face the evidence of subtlety, though to the inno- 
cent and unsuspecting Eve this, doubtless, did not 
appear. No doubt she was surprised to be addressed 
by, what may have seemed to be, a mere animal, upon 
a subject so fraught with mystery, and her mind was 
so carried away with the whole matter, that she did 
not suspect, in the least, that there was any sinister 
design against her, or any bait, concealing a hook,, 
thrown out to her by this strange visitor. But let us 
consider closely and we shall find that instead of one 
hook there w^ere three, one of which the tempter wa& 
sure would catch, perhaps all. 

1. There was Doubt in this question. This was 
very invidiously located in the bait. ^^ Yea, hath God 
said, ye shall not eat of every tree ? ^^ " Is this true ? 
Ts it possible that so great and good a Being as God 
is supposed to be, would, or could, deny you such a 
privilege as eating this beautiful and luscious fruity 
and that, too, under such a penalty ? Surely he could 
not do such a thing. There is a mistake about this 
matter. I eat it and have no harm. Why should you be 
denied the right of the whole garden ? It must be a 
mistake. ^^ 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 213 

2. There was Ridieule, This hook was a little 
more prominently placed. The beast probably laughed 
when he put the question, as if to say : ^^ It is all non- 
sense, all foolishness. It is strange what you and 
Adam have imagined about this. It is all imagina- 
tion. God is not going to punish any one with death 
for eating a little fruit. The idea is absurd. ^^ 

o. There was Indignation. This was put so as to 
be sure to catch if the others failed. From the smile 
of ridicule, the enemy assumes a sober and some- 
what vexed air, while he repeats the question : " Yea, 
hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree ?^^ '' Did 
he dare lay down such conditions, and thus rob you 
of your rights and privileges? Then I would not 
respect them. I would have nothing to do with any 
such being ! I would have my rights and let him 
take care of his. He knows it is wrong to thus deprive 
you of your liberties. Away with all such despotism ! 
Let us be free if the heavens fall ! For one, I am de- 
termined to enjoy what contributes to my pleasure, 
despite all the threats of any one ! ^' 

Now these are the very weapons, and the principal 
ones, made use of by the infidels of the present day, 
as well as in all the past. Any one may verify this 



214 CHEISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

statement by looking into any of the published infidel 
works. 

From Eve's reply it is evident she was shaken^ yea, 
taken ! The enemy, seeing his point gained, was bold 
enough to come out and deny, and in denying, de- 
nounce the word of God, as well as its author ! There 
are degrees in wickedness. There is the counsel of 
the ungodly, the way of the sinner, and the seat of the 
scornful. ^^Ye shall not surely die,'' says the tempter. 
A flat denial of the word of God. Then he pro- 
ceeds to clinch the barb of the hook or hooks, that 
there shall be no doubt of securing the game. ^^For 
God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then 
your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods^ 
knowing good and evil." He had caught her and 
now proceeds to secure his prize. O how adroitly 
does he manage the case ! No hitmari being could ever 
have conjured up that story. In this last declaration 
he seeks, and successfully, too, to arouse a spirit of 
ambition, and then rivalry. Ambition to be like 
God! Ambition to rival God! Ambition to know 
what was unlawful ! He succeeded, and the woman 
put forth her hand, took and ate, and by this brought 
" death and all our woe." But let us contrast Chris- 
tianity and Infidelity: 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 215 

II. In THEIR ATM OR END. Everything has an 
end at which it aims or to which it tends. There is 
no exception in these. The end of Christianity is 
twofold. 

1. The glory of God. The revelation of the divine 
glory is the great end of all divine activity. Not to 
heighten the essential glory as known to God himself — 
this would be impossible — but to heighten the illustra- 
tion of it in its manifestations to the universe. Let no 
one cast the slur of selfishness at the divine character 
on this account. As there is no higher end, Jehovah 
must be an end to himself. This is right. And yet 
we must not separate the manifestation of the divine 
glory, as an end, from the happiness of God^s intelli- 
gent creatures, as the other part of that end in the 
provisions of Christianity. These are treated sepa- 
rately in a work like this, not because they are really 
separable, for they are not, but because they are the 
two sides of the same great and inseparable end, and 
may be better illustrated apart. 

God seeks his own glory first, as an end, because it 
is right. This is the side of divine Justice. He seeks 
the happiness of his moral creatures, secondly, as an 
end, not in itself paramount to the other, nor in itself 



216 CHHISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

inferior to the otber^ but because it is right and pleas- 
urable too. This is the side of divine benevolence. 
But we are, in this section, particularly on the reflex 
influence of the Christian dispensation upon the di- 
vine character. Then let us attend to this. 

The work of Redemption, as set forth in the Scrip- 
tures, furnishes the greatest field for the illustration of 
the divine perfection w^e can possibly imagine. Here 
all the attributes of the divine character are mani- 
fested in their perfection and glory. In creation only 
part could be manifested. Here all find the broadest 
scope for exercise. Power to recreate a soul dead in 
trespasses and in sins — Wisdom to instruct and guide 
the church — Mercy to bestow upon the penitent — 
Love to win the wanderer back to the Father^s arms — 
Justice to punish the guilty — Omnipresence to restrain 
and encourage — Perfect Holiness as a pattern — Self- 
existence and Eternal Being as the ground of a stable 
hope. Thus is this part of the great end of Chris- 
tianity accomplished. But this is not all. There is an 
opportunity opened for the creature to answer back to 
these manifestations by love, by faith, by repentance 
and obedience. And when the tides of human love 
and joy, the result of the gospel upon human hearts, 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 217 

«hall be gathered into oiie^ and meet the combined 
tides of Jehovah's love^ and Jehovah's glory, upon 
the confines of time, there shall be a mighty upward 
heave as these rush together to break and coalesce 
upon the shores of eternity ! There shall be a sound 
as the roar of many waters, and the joy of the re- 
deemed shall flow into the joy of heaven and the 
harmony shall be glorious. 

2. The happiness of all who will believe in, love, 
and obev Christ. The salvation of souls from sin and 
death is a part of the grand end of Christianity. Man 
is under the power of spiritual death, and shut up in 
the dominion of temporal death, and must be handed 
over to eternal death unless saved by the Mercy of 
God. God offers life to all upon the conditions of 
the gospel. Jesus Christ, who is the very embodi- 
ment of mercy, stands at the door of the heart and 
pleads for admission. The Holy Spirit strives to win 
the sinner back to the Father's love ; and all this that 
God may be glorified and souls made happy. Is this 
not a grand and glorious end? Suppose not one soul 
should be saved the end or aim would still be a glori- 
ous one. But let us look at the end or aim of Infi- 
•delity. It is, 



218 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

1. The subversion of the word of God. This was- 
the great aim of the father of Infidelity^ the Devil^, 
when he entered the garden of Eden, assailed and 
ruined our foreparents, and, through them, the entire 
race. This is not to be wondered at when we con- 
sider his character and doom. But, that man, who 
needs Heaven's sympathy and help, should, in the face 
of all the evidence that Heaven is seeking to help 
him, strive to overthrow and destroy that on which 
his relief and happiness depends is beyond compre- 
hension. Any one, who Avill take the trouble to ex- 
amine it, must see that the Bible is a holy book, and 
that its aim, in part at least, is the purity and happi- 
ness of our race. Let any one consider the Moral 
Law and then ask himself if it could be more perfect. 
It covers every thought, word, and deed of every 
moral being in the world, past, present, and to come. 
Look at the sum of it as given by Christ: ^^Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, 
mind, and strength : and thy neighbor as thyself.^' Is 
this not good? James says: '^ The Avisdom'^ — that 
is the Bible and its religion — ^^ that is from above is 
first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be en- 
treated, full of mercy and good fruits, without par- 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 219 

tiality, and without hypocrisy/^ Could anything be 
better than this? The Bible condemns sin^ commands 
holiness^ and seeks to promote the happiness of man. 
Why seek to subvert it? The evils committed or the 
hypocrisy practiced by some of the professors of this 
religion are not chargeable to the Bible. It is not re- 
sponsible for these ; and yet some seem to think so. 
This is very unjust. Some men^ as some one has said, 
are all the time licking the sores of professing Chris- 
tians, like the dogs which tormented Lazarus by con- 
tinually licking his sores. The church gets bad mem- 
bers into it. This is unavoidable. But the crimes 
of these false brethren are not to be charged upon the 
church or the Bible. The church is willing to have 
all the devils cast out of her, thrice w^illing, where the 
church is what the Bible would have her be, and she 
feels, deeply feels, it would be a blessing to her, even 
as the casting of the seven devils out of Mary Mag- 
dalen was a real blessing to her. But is Infidelity 
walling to have her devils cast out? The church 
would be purified and beautified by this process, even 
as Mary Magdalen who was a truer better woman 
when the devils were gone. But cast all the devils 
out of Infidelity and there will be nothing left unless 



220 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

it may be a very small bunch of bristles! The existence 
and life of the church depends upon having the devils 
€ast out of the hearts of men, but the existence and 
life of Infidelity depends upon keeping the devils in 
their hearts ! It cannot exist apart from them ! All 
the devils in the church belong to Infidelity. They 
are made and supported by it — " False brethren crept 
in unawares^^ — " Spirits of the baser sort.^^ 

Here we raise the question : At whose door do the 
€vils, the wickedness, and the misery of this world lie ? 
Who is responsible for these things? Are they the 
offspring of Christianity or of Infidelity? Are they 
to be traced up to the church or to her enemies ? There 
would be no spiritual misery, no wrong-doing in 
the world if there were no sin. If everybody would 
live according to the directions of the Bible we would 
have almost a heaven on earth. But in this case In- 
fidelity would vanish from our world. What is at the 
bottom of every sin ? Unbelief. AVhat is at the bot- 
tom of unbelief? Hatred of God and holiness. What 
is at the bottom of hatred to God and holiness ? Des- 
perate wickedness. To what does desperate wicked- 
ness lead? To misery and death. What is Infidelity? 
Unbelief of the Word of God. Thus at the bottom 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 221 

Step, as we descend along the way, down which Infi- 
delity leads, we find misery and death unutterable! 
But at the top step, up the way along which Chris- 
tianity oiFers to lead us, we find glory ineffable, happi- 
ness inexpressible, life, life, eternal ! What a contrast ! 

2. The second aim of Infidelity is the exaltation of 
the creature instead of the Creator. Here again, see 
this set forth in the temptation of Eve by the Devil : 
" Ye shall be as gods.^^ Yes, but not by dishonoring 
the true God. Not by disobedience to the word of 
God. Infidelity would rob God of his glory and be- 
stow it upon the creature. Rob the holy God and 
honor the transgressor ! Murder Christ and release 
Barabbas ! Is this vituperation ? We say it is the 
truth. How^ different Christianity which seeks ta 
honor God but abase the creature for the creature^s 
good. See Romans 1: 25. 

3. The third aim of Infidelity is to promote the 
happiness of mankind at the expense of the truth, or 
by disobedience to the word of God. Well, no doubt, 
men can have some pleasure in disobedience to the 
word of God. They can revel, drink, lust, kill, steals 
blaspheme the name of God, lie^ covet, etc. — all of 
which may gratify the wicked heart. But we ask: 



222 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

Is it not a fiendish pleasure ? Is not that a hellish 
sweet, if sweet it may be called, which is purchased at 
the expense of all that is noble and virtuous? The 
Devil said to Eve : " Ye shall be as gods, knowing 
good and eviL^^ ^^You shall know what is good and 
how to choose it/^ Ah ! Free thought, free action ! 
Yes, but what is gone when the deed has been done? 
Virtue, happiness, life ! No wonder the next we hear 
of poor Adam and Eve they are, as they think, hid 
from the Omniscient God ! This is the state into 
which Infidelity led them. The infidelity of this age 
would have us ignore the word of God and seek our 
happiness in disobedience, unbelief, and rebellion. But 
let us remember that obedience to God^s word secures 
the only happiness worth having. Then this aim of 
Infidelity is a delusion. It leads to misery. Chris- 
tianity advises us to live by the word of God ; and we 
have never known, nor ever heard of an individual 
who had so lived, regretting it in the dying hour. They 
often regret not having lived according to the word 
of God. This certainly shows a difference. Death is 
generally an honest hour. 

III. In THEIR Creeds. The contrast here is very 
marked, as in many other things. The creed of Chris- 
tianity is, 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 223 

1. Faith in the triune God. By this is not meant 
that faith or belief which is simply intellectual or his- 
toric, but a faith which reaches the heart and draws 
out its warmest affection toward God as the Saviour 
of the soul ; an evangelical faith the very essence of 
which is trust. 

2. Repentance toward God and new life in Christ 
Jesus, through the operations of the Holy Spirit. 
Repentance for sin, and such a repentance as amounts 
to reformation of life. A godly sorrow for sin and 
a constant endeavor after a new life in love and 
obedience. Not mere resolutions to reform which are 
sometimes taken for repentance, but actual reforma- 
tion by God^s grace. Resolutions to reform will ac- 
company genuine repentance, but genuine repentance 
does not always accompany resolutions to reform one's 
life. Evangelical repentance leads to a new life in 
Christ Jesus. 

3. The third article in the creed of Christianity is 
hope in a glorious resurrection and an immortal life 
according to the promises of God's word. This is 
the anchor of the Christian's soul, and supports him 
amidst the greatest storms. Thus his ^^faith is the 
substance of things hoped for ; the evidence of things 



224 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

not seen/^ It is treasure laid up to which he looks^ 
forward and from which he draws comfort even here. 
He may love this life^ may tremble at the sight of 
death, but this trembling is the result of a fear that 
he may not be right in his heart and consequently 
lose the inheritance which is all-glorious, and which 
fadeth not away. His fear is the result of not being 
able, perfectly, to ^^read his title clear to mansions in 
the sky,^^ and not a want of confidence in God or the 
realities of heaven. True Christians always feel very 
unworthy of the ^^rest which remains for the people 
of God,^^ and this is often the secret of their dread of 
death. They fear lest they should miss the prize at 
last. But it is their great appreciation of it which 
makes them fear losing it. But let us be sure to dis- 
tinguish between the genuine and the false here. 
The true Christian trusts in Christ alone for salva- 
tion, not in anywise in his own merit. He hates sin 
and strives after a holy life. But let us look at the 
creed of Infidelity. It is, 

1. Free thought. To think as they please, and speak 
as they please, and do as they please is a matter of 
great ambition with some people. They imagine that 
this is genuine liberty. There never was a greater 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 225 

mistake. This is license, not liberty. Suppose the 
civil law would allow this to every man, then would 
it license every species of crime. Suppose the law of 
God should allow this to any or all, then would it 
encourage rather than restrain » sin. To be a Free 
Thinker is a matter of great pride with some. Well, 
there is a sense in which every one ought to be proud 
of the liberty of free thought, but this is not the 
sense of the phrase as used by the Infidel. The 
skeptic attaches his own meaning to the phrase. Of 
what is he proud ? He claims the right to think up 
a god for himself, a religion for himself, a system of 
morals for himself. Well, he may have the personal 
right, he may have the civil right, provided his 
preferences do not interfere with the protected rights 
of others ; but he has no moral right to do so, unless 
he can demonstrate to a certainty, that the Bible is 
false and that there is no God. This he cannot do ; 
so he has no moral right to be a Free Thinker if this 
is what he means by it. As long as there is a reason- 
able probability that the Bible is true it binds the 
conscience of every man. 

But what is there in this claim of free-thought in 
which the Infidel glories ? Is it liberty to do right? 

15 



226 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

Or is it license to do wrong if he chooses to do so? 
The latter unquestionably. ^^ Well/^ says the objector, 
"is not this his right ?^' We answer, no. Not unless 
wrong can be right and wrong at the same time. He 
has no right to do wrong, nor ever can have. "But 
there are diflFerent views, among men, as to what is 
right and what is wrong, who shall be the judge, ^^ 
says the objector. Ah, this shifts the ground of dis- 
cussion. This is a very different question. There 
are cases where each man will have to judge for him- 
self, with the best lights he has, being responsible for 
his conclusion. But no man has a right to settle for 
himself or others the great principles of morality. 
God is judge. The question is : has any man the 
right to do wrong if he chooses to do so ? It is 
absurd to raise any such question. But this is the 
right for which the Free Thinker contends! 

But we return to the main question : What is there 
in this claim of free thought in which the Infidel glo- 
ries? Is it the right to his own opinions ? But opin- 
ions have amoral character, and a man^s opinions may 
be morally wrong. Will he then claim that he has 
a right to them? He has no more right to be- 
lieve wrong than he has to do wrong. Too many 



' CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 227 

lose sight of this in this day. There is too much of 
that rotten philosophy : '' It does not matter what a 
man believes if he is honest in his belief ^^ It does 
matter what a man believes; and he will be judged 
according to the wrong or evil of his opinions, and 
their influence on others. There may be some ex- 
cuse where there is no light, but a man is responsible 
for every ray of light that he has or may have. 

2. The second article in the creed of Infidelity is, 
self-righteousness and a mercy with no Christ in it. 
The latter part is a matter of trust with those only who 
believe in the existence of God and in a future life, 
but either deny the divine origin of the Bible, or seek 
to rob Christ of his glory by denying his divinity — 
thus making him an object unworthy of trust accord- 
ing to their view. The former are Deists, the latter 
Unitarians and Universalists. Then, viewing the 
wliole article we are constrained to exclaim: ^^What 
a misplaced trust ! '^ Our righteousness is as filthy 
rags.^^ As to a mercy with no Christ in it, there 
can be no such thing. Christ is the only medium 
through which we can receive salvation. He says: 
^' No man cometh unto the Father but by me.^' 
'' Neither is there salvation in any other.^^ If the en- 



228 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

tire human family were gathered into one man and he 
offered as a sacrifice to God, it would not be a suffi- 
cient atonement for one sin. His blood would but 
stink in the nostrils of Jehovah ! There is no hope 
apart from Christ. He says, '' without me ye can da 
nothing.'^ 

3. The third article in the creed of Infidelity is: 
Hope in annihilation or eternal life dishonestly obtained.. 
Some infidels cannot get rid of the idea of God and a 
future life. It is very doubtful whether any do en- 
tirely. Some say they have, and look forward to com- 
plete extinction at death. This is their hope. But we 
have seen in chapter VII. there is no good ground for 
any such hope. But suppose there was equal ground 
for hoping in this as there is for hoping for future 
existence beyond the grave, who would hesitate, unless 
swayed by a fear of punishment on account of sin, to 
cleave unto the hope of eternal life? Our natural 
love of life would compel us to this choice. This i& 
the only view which can be in harmony with our na- 
tures. ^' Why, then, '^ says one, ^^ do men ever hope 
for annihilation?^^ We reply: ^^ Either, first, because 
life is a miserable burden to them on some account, or^ 
second, because they are guilty of some great crime or 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 229 

crimes^ a sense of which rests on the heart as a 
mighty load unbearable^ and^ having no hope of par- 
don, they seize upon this vain hope as a relief. There 
is no evidence to support it^ but they grasp at the de- 
lusion because it has been suggested. It is suggested 
by the Enemy as a means of accomplishing his own 
nefarious purposes. It doubtless causes many suicides? 
^Iso the commission of many crimes. If it could 
seize the hearts of men generally it would make a hell 
on earth ! What a blessed thing it is that Conscience 
keeps men bound over to the Judgment : 

Others say they hope for everlasting life, but not 
:according to the Bible plan. They trust in the Jus- 
tice of the great Creator who, they say, will not cast 
them away eternally on account of any " mistahes^^ they 
have made. God, they say, is too Just to do anything 
of the kind. But what does this hope amount to? A 
hope that God's Justice may be sacrificed, and that they 
may dishonestly mheYii eternal life. Think of a trans- 
gressor of God\s law rejecting divine Mercy and ap- 
pealing to divine Justice as the ground of his hope! 
Justice demands the punishment of the sinner, and 
Mercy alone is able to offer Redemption in Christ. 
But the Infidel would slip in and appropriate that for 



230 CHKISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

which another^ whom he despises^ has suffered and 
d\edl ^'1 am the door/^ says Christ, ^^by me if any 
man enter in he shall be saved, but he that climbeth up 
some other way is a thief and a robber/^ But let us 
contrast Christianity and Infidelity : 

lY. In their influence. This is a broad field, 
but we will survey only a portion of it. The influence 
of Christianity is twofold. 

1. It restrains men from the commission of sin. The 
Bible condemns sin in all its forms, and pronounces 
judgment upon the sinner. It attaches a penalty for 
the violation of its teachings. Is not this right? What 
sort of government and society would we have if those 
who violated the laws of the land were never punished? 
Would not the world soon be deluged in crime and 
blood? Man is a moral being, but he needs the re- 
straints of law and penalty. Even with these, how 
hard is it to restrain men from crime ! Without the re- 
straints of conscience revealing the Judgment, backed 
by the Bible revealing the penalty, society and the 
State could do nothing with our race. True we have 
society and government where there is no Bible, 
but Conscience is there. Such governments and such 
society, however, are not to be compared to those where 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 231 

the authority of Conscience, which reveals the law of 
God written in the heart, is supported by the authority 
of the Bible. 

2. Christianity influences men for good. It en- 
courages the practice of virtue, ennobles the mind, 
elevates the heart, and makes man better in every re- 
lation of life. Compare the best Christian with the 
best heathen man, and then estimate the influence of 
Christianity for good. But Christianity is not a mere 
moral code. It is a divine religion designed to reach 
and comfort the heart. No religion on earth, except 
the Christian religion, will raise man from the barba- 
rian to the civilized gentleman, actuated and inspired 
by hopes which purify the heart and life, as well as 
comfort the soul, in view of the future, with a refined 
spiritual comfort. 

But let us turn to the influence of Infidelity. By 
seeking the overthrow of Christianity it influences men 
for evil. It leaves the impression in all its teachings, 
if it does not actually inculcate it by word, that there 
is no difference in acts in the end. If it believes in a 
future state at all, it teaches that all will be equal 
there ; that God will not punish any one after this 
life ; that all we have to do is to do nothing except 



232 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

what suits its. " O no/^ says one^ '' we believe in up- 
right livings in moral rectitude/^ We reply, we are 
aware that some infidels are very decent in their out- 
ward lives; but by seeking to abolish Christianity, 
they virtually seek to abolish the distinction between 
right and wrong. They take away the reward of 
moral^ upright living, and the punishment of vice, ex- 
cept what may be experienced in this life. They thus 
open wide the flood-gates of iniquity. If they say 
they do not believe in a future life at all, they only 
make matters worse. Thus is the influence of infidel- 
ity evil, and only evil continually. It puts no re- 
straint upon vice, it offers no reward to virtue beyond 
this life. 

Y. In their final issues. The Bible clearly re- 
veals a heaven and a hell. A Heaven to which those 
who obey God in this world shall be brought; a Hell 
to which those who disobey God in this world shall go. 
Just what these places are in their fullness we know 
not. We know from the teachings of the Bible that 
heaven is a place of great glory and happiness • 
and that hell is a place of great misery. Now, the 
final issue of Christianity is the salvation and glorifi- 
cation in Heaven of millions and millions of sinners. 



CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 233 

The blessings bestowed on these are twofold. They 
:are delivered from sin and all its consequences on the 
one hand, and on the other translated into the regions 
of glory and blessedness. Thus the gospel saves 
from eternal death and bestows eternal life. It brings 
multiplied millions of sinners to God, and finally to 
Heaven. Is not this a glorious issue ? But we can- 
not dwell upon the eternal inheritance. 

What will be the final issue of Infidelity ? Can 
any tongue or pen depict the scenes of horror which 
shall greet the eyes of the lost ? Infidelity will claim 
its millions as victims of delusion ! ^^Outer darkness, 
weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth ; the worm 
that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched. ^^ 
These are some of the expressions made use of in the 
Bible to denote the torments of lost souls. " But 
these are figurative expressions,^^ says one. Well, 
suppose they are; figures have meaning, and are some- 
times only faint images of what they represent. Is it 
wise to risk it ? 

^^But we do not believe there is a hell,'^ says the in- 
fidel. O! this is what men want to get rid of. The 
hatred of men to the Bible is generally owing, in a 
great measure, to the fact that the Bible reveals a 



234 CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY. 

hell. Well, to use a suggestion which has often been 
made, and one which seems to have influenced the 
mind of J. S. Mill: If there is no hell the Christian 
is as well off as the Infidel; if there is a hell, and all 
the Bible proves to be true at last, despite the oppo- 
sition of all opposers, what then ? Here is what the 
Bible says: ^^ Blessed is the man that heareth me, 
watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of 
my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and 
shall obtain favor of the Lord. But he that sinneth 
against me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate 
me love death. ^^ Proverbs 8:34-36. This is Wisdom. 
Had we not best be sure we are on the safe side? The 
door of opportunity is open — once shut it is shut 
forever ! 



CHAPTER Xiy. 

HEAVEN AND HELL AND MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 

Heaven and Hell as discovered in Reason and re- 
vealed in the Bible must be widely diflFerent places; 
particularly in regard to the condition of those who 
inhabit them. Heaven must be a place of happiness^ 
because it is a holy place. To be holy is to be happy. 
Hell must be a place of misery^ because it is an un- 
holy place. Sin, as we have seen, must produce mis- 
ery. ^' But Heaven and Hell are states^ not places/^ 
says some one. We reply, it is hard to separate, alto- 
gether, state from place. True we may be happy or 
miserable and feel that the place that we are in has 
little to do with our condition; and yet, we can hardly 
conceive of such a thing without realizing at the same 
time, that a change of place might, and, in all likeli- 
hood would, affect our condition for better or worse. If 
miserable, we might be made more or less miserable; 
or, if happy, we might be made more or less happy, by 
change of place, other circumstances and other condi- 
tions remaining the same. 

But Heaven and Hell, if they exist at all, must be 



236 ^ HEAVEN AND HELL. 

places^ though they be said to be states also. For if^ 
they exist at all, they must exist for a purpose. One of 
them must exist for one class of individuals and the 
other for a different class. Now, it is impossible to 
conceive of an individual or class of created spirits 
existing apart from place. Space is a necessary con- 
dition of existence ; hence, space is infinite and eternal, 
because God is infinite and eternal. Whether two 
spirits can occupy the same space at the same time is a 
question which science cannot settle, while Revelation 
is silent on the subject. But two bodies cannot occupy 
the same space at the same time, and we are to have 
bodies of some kind in the future world as well as in 
this. This is declared in the Bible. A body occu- 
pies space and hence a place. Therefore Heaven and 
Hell, if they exist at all, and are to be occupied, must 
be places. On the existence of these places let us note 
the following: 

1. The consensus of opinion among men. It is 
almost universally conceded that there are such places. 
It is not necessary to dwell on this point. It is suffi- 
cient to call attention to the fact, which has already 
been set forth, that religion of some sort is universal, 
as the religious nature is universal; and that all re- 



HEAVEN AND HELL. 287 

ligions set forth these ideas more or less plainly, 
with more or less emphasis. But that we may under- 
stand the arguments by which the claim, that there 
is a Heaven and a Hell, is established let us notice, 

2. Reason clearly indicates that there is to be a 
Judgment day for every man, in which his entire life 
is to pass in review, and he be condemned or ap- 
proved according to his deeds done in the body. 
This is not a dogma of Revelation only; it is the 
teachings of Reason through the conscience as well. 
This is made certain by the study of all religions, the 
devotees of which have no knowledge of the Bible. 
Take the religion of the Greeks as an example. True, 
men in Bible-lands, and men who accept the Bible as 
a divine book, differ in their opinions about many 
things that respect the Judgment — the time, for in- 
stance, and many circumstances — but all agree that a 
Judgment of some sort and at some time is to be ex- 
pected. The more cultivated and moral a people are 
the more fixed is this notion. The Bible, which we 
have seen to be of divine origin, corroborates the 
teachings of Reason on this subject, and wonderfully 
emphasizes it above what unaided Reason is able to do. 
^^We must,^^ says the Bible, ^^all appear before the 



238 MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 

Judgment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive 
the things done in his body, according to that he hath 
done, whether it be good or bad. '^ 2 Cor. 5 :10. This 
ouo^ht to settle this matter. 

3. Reason teaches that the wicked are to be sepa- 
rated from the righteous. If not, why any Judgment ? 
Certainly this is implied in the very thought of a Judg- 
ment, especially when we remember that there are 
good and bad to be judged. It is implied also in the 
idea of Heaven and Hell, which seems to be insepa- 
rable from the fallen mind, and which we deem suffi- 
ciently proven to appeal to in this way, at this stage 
of the discussion, without being open to the charge of 
arguing in a circle, or begging the question. Besides, 
the Bible teaches this doctrine with awful solemnity. 
Read the first Psalm, also the twenty-fifth chapter of 
Matthew. Many hundreds of passages might be quoted 
from both Testaments. Now if the righteous and the 
wicked are to be separated, which is both reasonable 
and scriptural, then there must be separate places for 
them. These are called Heaven and Hell. 

The second matter to which we invite attention in 
this chapter is man^s eternal destiny. All are 
agreed that an eternal destiny of some sort pertains to 



MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 239 

man. This is a necessity, whatever may be said of 
his nature, origin, etc. First, he must live forever as 
he is here; or, second, he must be annihilated at death ; 
or, third, he must live in the future world for a time 
and then be annihilated; or, fourth, he must live for- 
ever in a state of happiness or misery in a future 
world, or in a state where he is, as he is here, subject to 
a strange mixture of both good and evil. Now, which 
of these do we think most probable in the light of all 
the facts? Here let us notice, 

1. Physical science has very little to say on the 
eternal destiny of man except by implication, and even 
in this way nothing very definite. It says: ^^ Man 
cannot live always as he is here — that his body is 
corruptible — that it must decay. ^^ It so far corrobo- 
rates the teachings of the Bible which says to man : 
^^Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. ^^ 
And, again : ^^ Death has passed upon all men, for that 
all have sinned.'^ Physical science furnishes us with 
many beautiful illustrations of the transformation of 
life from one state into another. For instance, the 
caterpillar into the butterfly; but in all these it makes 
no intimation on the eternal destiny of the soul fur- 
ther than that it may, and probably will, live in a 



240 MAK^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 

future state. It is as mute as the hills on the eternal 
destiny of man. It knows nothing of the subjects 
What does Chemistry^ or Natural Philosopliy, or Ge- 
ology, or Astronomy know of this matter? Mathe- 
matics, with all her infinite computations, can give u& 
no light on this subject. Even Physiology can tell 
us nothing. Profane history has not one word to say 
on this great theme, nor can have. 

2. Mental and Moral Philosophy certainly teach, by 
implication at least, the doctrine of a future life for 
man, but these sciences utter no voice on the eternal 
destiny of the soul apart from the teachings of the 
Scriptures. 

3. The Bible, and the Bible alone, opens eternity to 
our view, and informs us of the eternal destiny of 
man. Reason discerns the future existence of the soul,, 
but the Bible alone can unfold that future. Behold 
the goodness of God in giving us a Supernatural Reve- 
lation ! Without the Bible we would have been left 
goaded and tormented by conscience without one ray 
of hope to light up the future unless it were such a 
hope as is entertained by the heathen. 

Here let us inquire, what is it on which the infidel 
relies for information on this subject? He seems, at 



MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 241 

times, to be confident, and boasts of his prospective 
safety. Has any one come back from the eternal world, 
with information, to the fraternity of skeptics, on this 
matter? Has any one of their number gone out and 
explored the land, and returned with certain knowl- 
edge? Modern Spiritualism has been engaged in 
their behalf, and has often announced veritable com- 
munications with departed spirits, but Science and the 
Bible denounce the whole business as a fraud. ^^But 
the Bible gives an account of communications between 
the living and the dead in the case of Samuel, called 
up by the witch of Endor, to advise Saul, the King/^ 
says some one. We reply, the cases are not parallel 
at all. This was divine agency working through a 
wicked channel for a specific purpose. It was miracu- 
lous. We hardly believe that the mediums of the 
Spiritualism of this day are possessed of Supernatural 
power. God may allow the Devil to do some things 
wonderful at their hand as he did at the hand of Jannes 
and Jambres who withstood Moses, but there will be 
no spiritual benefit. The truth is, if men were to 
come from the dead many of these infidels would re- 
ceive no spiritual benefit, since, as is declared in the 
parable of Dives and Lazarus, "If they hear not Mosea 

16 



242 MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 

and the prophets, they would not be persuaded though 
one rose from the dead/^ By the way, we have in this 
parable, a deal of light, to the believer, on the point 
in hand. Then we come back to our proposition, the 
Bible and the Bible alone settles the question of the 
eternal destiny of man. 

^^ O no,^^ says one, ^Hhe Koran settles the matter, 
though somewhat differently from the Bible ; and the 
Yedas settle it, with a variation from the Bible and 
the Koran; the sacred books of the Chinese settle it, 
though with a variation again from all the others. 
Now which is to be believed ?^^ If this were made as 
a serious, honest objection — though we do not believe 
that it ever is — we would take special pains to answer 
it. This objection is generally no more nor less than 
an attempt to throw contempt on the Bible. Hence 
we pass it by with this remark : It is a pity, it seems 
to us, that one in a dark pit, threatened with ruin and 
misery unutterable, should be so vile as to sneer, with 
contempt, at the only ray of light that can reach his 
dark abode ! The Bible seems to be an object of en- 
mity with some people, and degrade it they must ir 
possible! Why is this? What is there in the Bible 
to merit such treatment? It is man's best friend. 



MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 243 

The occasion of the enmity against the Bible, in 
most cases at least, is, unquestionably, the doctrine 
of Hell. But why should man fall out with it on this 
account? Man himself is the cause of all the Hell 
there is for him. Sin dug the Pit ; sin kindled its 
fires, and sin promotes its sufferings. God is love and 
he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Bid, 
^^The w^ages of sin is death. ^^ Sin must be punished, 
and it is its own damnation. God has provided salva- 
tion for the sinner, and oifers it to all on easy terms. 
If we refuse it and are lost will the Bible or its Author 
be to blame ? Surely not. 

4. On what is the future state or condition of man to 
hinge f We answer, as the Bible alone reveals the eter- 
nal destiny of man it must answer this question. Christ 
says : ^^I am the way, and the truth, and the life ; no 
man cometh unto the Father but by me.^^ Paul and 
Silas said to the Philippian jailer, in answer to the 
question he put to them on this subject, ^^ Believe in 
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and 
thy house. ^' This is simple and easy to all, by God's 
grace, which he offers to all who desire to know the 
way. There must be some condition. Suppose we try 
to find some condition more suitable to all. Can we 



244 MAN^S ETEKNAL DESTINY. 

do it ? This places salvation, by God's grace, in 
reach of all who hear the gospel, ^^The sick, the poor,, 
the great and small, of every tribe and nation/' The 
poor thief upon the cross could, by God's grace, be- 
lieve and be saved. So may all who will. ^^Ho, 
every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters," says 
Isaiah, " and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, 
and eat; yea, come, buy w^ine and milk without 
money and without price." He means to tell us the 
conditions of salvation. Of course there must be re- 
pentance, there must be obedience, but these will 
exist if we believe with the heart. Then faith in, or 
our rejection of Christ, is the hinge on which our 
destiny is to turn. ^^This is ridiculous," says one. 
We say it is not to those who earnestly seek the truth 
and reverence God, and respect their own souls as they 
ought. Paul says: ^^The natural man receiveth 
not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are fool- 
ishness unto him." See how the Bible meets this 
case. In the third chapter of John, thirty-sixth verse, 
it is said : ^^He that believeth on the Son hath ever- 
lasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son shall 
not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 
This is decisive. 



man's eternal destiny. 24f5 

Here one says : ^^I cannot understand the doctrines 
of Imputation and Substitution/' We reply^ this is no 
reason for rejecting them. Isaiah says concerning 
Christ : ^^He bore our sins and carried our sorrows, 
and with his stripes we are healed/' Now shall we 
reject this teaching because w^e cannot understand all 
about it? We do not act thus in other matters. We 
cannot understand how quinine removes malaria from 
the system, yet if we are sick from malaria we take 
quinine. Some say: ^^ These doctrines of Substitu- 
tion and Imputation represent God as unjust." Well, 
we need not trouble ourselves about that. God will 
take care of his justice. He says : ^^He can be just, 
and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. '^ 
This is sufficient. Let us take the Bible for our 
guide. It will do us good. We may spend our days 
in raising objections, and all to no purpose. Many 
have done this and regretted it when it was too late to 
remedy the evil. All objections may be met and 
fairly answered. We cannot meet all in a short 
treatise like this; but all can be met. Let us think 
of the influence we are shedding on others by our po- 
sition. It is for weal or woe. Some one has said : 
"^^ Infidels are moral cancer planters !" Think of it. 



246 MAN^S ETERNAL DESTINY. 

Ruining themselves and others ! The Bible says : 
'' Be not deceived^ God is not mocked; for whatso- 
ever a man soweth that shall he also reap/^ "Moral 
Cancer Planters !^^ O! what shall the harvest be ? 
We have heard the answer of Paul and Silas to the 
Philippian jailer, who said to them : " Sirs, what 
must I do to be saved ?^^ And they said: ^^ Believe 
in the Lord Jesus Christy and thou shalt be saved and 
thy house/^ Faith is necessary to all the Christian 
graces and leads them. But it must be a faith that 
works by love — a faith that in its influence leads to 
Sanctification — a faith that overcomes the world. 
Without this faith we cannot lead holy lives and serve 
God acceptably. ^^ Whatsoever is not of faith is sin/^ 
says the Bible. But as this sort of Faith is the gift 
of God, Eph. 2 : 8, the great question, with many, is, 
" How shall I obtain this Faith ?^^ Many understand 
ivliat is necessary to be done in order to be saved, but, 
hoio to do it is the great question. 

The writer had a letter once from a very intelligent 
person who was much concerned on the subject of the 
souPs salvation. In it was the following sentence: 
''\ know you can tell me what to do, but can't you 
tell me how f^^ Many are more concerned about the 



man's eternal destiny. 247 

how than the lohat. Now for the benefit of any who 
may be concerned in this way^ whose eyes these lines 
may chance to meet, we say : 

(1) Cease from man^s inventions on this subject. 
They are many. Solomon says : '' Lo, this only 
have I found, that God hath made man upright, but 
they have sought out many inventions. ^^ Isms of the 
world designed to subvert the Bible! We have heard 
a great deal about the warfare of science. Who has 
Avritten the tvarfare of the Bible ? Who could ? 
Man is given to moral and religious inventions ; even 
more so, the Devil. Satan beguiled Eve into the at- 
tempt to invent herself into a god, and ever since he 
has sought to entertain all who will listen to him, 
with Isms designed to mislead. A refuge of lies ! 
Let us cease from man's ways in these things, and the 
Devil's too. 

(2) Let us take God's word as our guide. ^' The 
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the 
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the sim- 
ple." — David. '' Faith cometh by hearing, and hear- 
ing by the word of God." — Paul. ^' Him that cometh 
unto me I will in no wise cast out." — Jesus Christ. 



CONCLUSION. 

We have now reached the point of conclusion in this 
book. We have seen what man is and whence he 
came, and why he came. As. to his future we have 
seen, from the light of Reason, that it is morally cer- 
tain that he must live after the death of his body, and 
that he is, on account of sin, liable to suffering ; that 
he needs a Supernatural Revelation to instruct him in 
many things; that such a revelation has been given in 
the Bible which teaches him, in all matters of duty, 
and opens the future more fully to him. Now, reader, 
before we part let us direct your attention to one other 
matter. 

Man loas not made for the Bible hut the Bible for man. 
This we know from the nature and contents of it. It 
is addressed to man and offers him relief. It carries 
with it the olive branch of peace. It does not propose 
to rob man of his rights. It is no tyrant attempting 
to coerce him into terms, but it recognizes him as free 
to choose or refuse, and only endeavors to persuade 
him to submit himself to God. Now the great ques- 
tion is: What should man, under all the cir- 
cumstances, DO WITH the bible ? 



CONCLUSION. 249 

1. Should he reject and denounce it as a fraud? 
If so, why? Because it professes or claims to be from 
God? Why, then, not denounce Nature as a fraud? 
She claims God as her author. Every creature is loud 
in this claim. Does every creature lie in this claim? 
The man who declares this is an Atheist. Is atheism 
reasonable? Why should man denounce the Bible as 
a fraud? Because it contains inscrutable mysteries? 
Nature contains just such mysteries. Could any hu- 
man being believe the Bible to be from God if it did 
not contain inscrutable mysteries? Reason says: 
^^No.^' Why should man denounce the Bible as false? 
Because it contains the doctrine of future punishment 
for the wicked? Reason and Conscience teach the same. 
Should Reason and Conscience be denounced because 
they give us glimpses of some things we do not like 
to see? But why should man reject the Bible and 
denounce it as false? Because it tells man what he 
is morally, reveals the scars of sin in his soul, and 
points him to the Judgment where he must render his 
account? Conscience does the same. Once more. 
Why should man reject the Bible and denounce it as 
a fraud? Because it offers a remedy for his sin, teaches 
him to fear God, depart from iniquity, and thus try to 



250 CONCLUSION. 

shun Hell and get to Heaven? Reason says: ^^Man 
needs help ; that he ought to forsake sin, and try to 
get to Heaven. Hence the man who opposes the Bible 
opposes Reason and Common-sense. 

2. Should man neglect the Bible and its instruc- 
tions ? If so, why ? Because there is a better book 
anywhere ? Because there is a better religion than it 
teaches? Where can such a book and such a religion 
be found ? Is Heathenism better than Christianity ? 
Are the sacred books of the Hindoos, or Chinese, or 
Mohammed superior to the Bible ? Are they equal 
to itf James says : " The wisdom, ^^ that is the reli- 
gion and instructions of the Bible, '' that is from above 
is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be 
entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without par- 
tiality, and without hypocrisy. ^^ Could anything be 
superior to this? Bible wisdom says: *^ He that 
sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul. All they 
that hate me love death. ^^ How strange is it that man 
will wrong his own soul ! That he will, from choice, 
pursue the course of death ! 

3. Should not man, rather than reject or neglect the 
Bible, accept its proffered help? Suppose, after all 
the efforts of infidelity to demolish it, there remains 



CONCLUSION. 251 

one doubt, just o?i6, as to whether these efforts have 
been successful, should we not give our souls the ben- 
efit, of the doubt? Instead of this being the case, 
however, the truth is, almost every ray of light, from 
every quarter, points to the confirmation of the claims 
of the Bible. Does this book demand of us anything 
that is calculated to make us miserable except the for- 
saking of the sin we love? To forsake sin and turn 
unto God is to live. Unbelief is sin. Then, in order 
to live, we must forsake unbelief. What shall we do ? 
We must have a god. Who is our god? We must 
have a belief What is our belief? We must have a 
religion. What is our religion? Is there any com- 
fort in Infidelity f Listen : ^^ There was never law, or 
sect, or opinion did so magnify goodness as the Chris- 
tian religion doth.'^ — Bacon. ^^ Human happiness has 
no perfect security but freedom ; freedom none but 
virtue ; virtue none but knowledge ; and neither free- 
dom, nor virtue, nor knowledge has any vigor, or im- 
mortal hope, except in the principles of the Christian 
faith, and in the sanctions of the Christian religion. ^^ — 
Josiah Quincy. '^ Bat wisdom is justified of her chil- 
dren. ^^ — Jesus Christ. 

THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



m (vr 



